Smt. Savitri Devi And Ors vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6493 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2284/2013

Smt. Savitri Devi And Ors.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj. And Ors.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Ms. Varsha Bissa.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. J.L.Purohit, Sr. Advocate along
                               with Mr. Shashank Ojha.
                               Mr. Rajeev Purohit.
                               Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.
                               Mr. Ankur Mathur.
                               Mr. Mahesh Joshi.
                               Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

04/03/2021

The present writ petition has come up before the Court for

disposal of various pending applications.

The writ petition was filed on 15/2/2013 aggrieved against

the judgment dated 12/12/2012 passed by Board of Revenue

(Annex.8) and judgment dated 16/6/2007 passed by Revenue

Appellate Authority (Annex.7).

In the petition, besides the State, three authorities i.e. Board

of Revenue, Revenue Appellate Authority, Sub. Divisional Officer,

Jodhpur Development Authority, Vinod Bohra and Smt. Rami Devi

Bhattad have been impleaded as party respondents.

From the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annex.8), it

is apparent that it was only U.I.T., State of Rajasthan and Vinod

Bohra, who were parties, though no reason has been indicated in

(2 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

the writ petition for impleading respondent no.7 - Rami Devi

Bhattad as party respondent, in para 16 of the writ petition, a

reference has been made that respondent no.6 Vinod Bohra has

sold the subject plot to respondent no. 7 & copy of the registered

sale deed has been produced as Annex.10.

Besides the above, it is also noticed that while the appellants

before the Board of Revenue were Smt. Savitri, Om Prakash and

Govind Prakash only and one Jeti Bai was also a party respondent,

the present writ petition has been filed by two additional

petitioners Smt. Manju Jalani and Smt. Krishna, whereas name of

Smt. Jeti Bai has been deleted from the array of parties. In the

petition, there is no indication whatsoever regarding the basis for

such inclusion and/or exclusion.

It appears that on 8/1/2013, prior to filing of the writ

petition, on behalf of Vinod Bohra, caveat was filed though counsel

Mr. S.D.Purohit supported by Vakalatnama given by said Vinod

Bohra. Further it appears that on 5/3/2013,when the matter came

up before the Court for the first time, on the same day i.e.

5/3/2013, Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 7 - Rami

Devi also came to be filed by counsel Mr. Purohit and on 5/3/2013

a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel Mr. S.D.Purohit appears for the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

Issue show cause notice to the remaining respondent no. 1 to 5. Copy of this order may also be sent to the respondents along-with notice.

Rule is made returnable within four week. "Dasti". Direct service permitted.

Counsel to file proof of service on the respondents, and not merely proof of despatch of notices, before the next date positively. In the alternative, affidavit of the counsel/party of compliance to the extent made, be filed.

In the meanwhile, status quo with regard to plots in question, as it exists today, shall be maintained."

(3 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

Thereafter, on 14/7/2014, reply on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7

was filed through counsel Mr. Purohit. The reply was supported by affidaivt

of respondent no. 7 - Rami Devi Bhattad. Whereafter, the matter remained

pending without any progress.

Second stay application was filed on 2/5/2017 seeking further stay.

On 1/6/2017 this Court passed the following order on second stay

application:

"Time was prayed for by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 on 17/5/2017. Neither the reply has been filed nor the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 is present despite matter being called out twice.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite grant of interim order by this Court to maintain status quo, the respondents were raising constructions at the site and have placed on record certain photographs.

In the circumstances of the case, wherein already a stay has been granted by this Court and the respondents are seeking to raise construction in defiance of the said order, the respondents are restrained from raising further construction and it is directed that status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties till further order."

It is the passing of the above order dated 1/6/2017, which triggered a

spate of activities and applications containing allegations and counter

allegations.

Applicants Dr. Arpana Kishoriya and Dr. Naveen Kishoriya filed

application (I.A.No. 6751/2017) on 16/12/2017 under Order I Rule 10 CPC

seeking impleadment as party respondents to the present writ petition on

the strength of a sale deed dated 29/12/2015 executed by respondent no. 7

- Rami Devi Bhattad in their favour with the averments that they were

unaware of pendency of any sort of litigation in relation to property in

question.

Application (I.A.No. 6798/2017) was filed by the respondent no. 7

seeking recall of the orders dated 5/3/2013 & 1/6/2017 and withdrawal of

reply filed on behalf of the applicant - respondent no. 7, withdrawal of

Vakalatnama purportedly signed in favour of Mr. Purohit inter alia claiming

that the respondent no. 7 - applicant was unaware of the litigation, did not

(4 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

engage Mr. Purohit, did not sign the Vakalatnama and did not sign the reply

purportedly filed on her behalf.

On 3/1/2018, an application (I.A.No. 39/2018) was filed by counsel Mr.

Purohit seeking to withdraw the Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 7,

Smt. Rami Devi Bhattad.

Another application (I.A. No. 59/2018) was filed by the petitioner

under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of proceedings against the

respondent no. 7.

The matter came up before the Court on 2/5/2018 and after going

through the various applications, noticing the statement of counsel

appearing for respondent no. 6 that respondent no. 6 had in fact executed

Vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Purohit and had instructed him to file Caveat,

recording the statement of respondent no. 7, who was present in person in

the Court, directed as under:

"In view of the above allegations made by the applicant, the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send the disputed Vakalatnama dated 05.03.2013 said to have been executed by respondent No. 7 - Rami Devi Bhattad and disputed reply dated 14.07.2014 to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the admitted Vakalatnamas dated 08.01.2018 and 09.02.2018 as well as the application dated 19.12.2017 containing the admitted signatures of the applicant to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur for making a report as to whether the Vakalatnama dated 05.03.2013 as well as the reply dated 14.07.2014 contain the signatures of the applicant - respondent No. 7 Rami Devi Bhattad or not.

The report by FSL, Jodhpur to the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) be sent in a sealed cover."

Pursuant to the directions of the Court dated 2/5/2018, the

report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur ('SFSL') has

been received, wherein, the following two conclusions have been

arrived at:

"1. On the basis of material supplied, the blue enclosed disputed signatures stamped and marked as Q2 to Q34 show dissimilarities with the blue enclosed admitted signatures stamped and marked as A1 to A114. (Provided that the admitted photocopy signatures marked as A27,

(5 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

A40, A45, A48, A51, A57, A60, A62, A63, A65, A68, A72, A74, A76, A81, A84, A86, A88, A90 are true and faithful reproduction of the original document.)

2. On the basis of material at hand, it has not been possible to express a definite opinion regarding authorship of the disputed signature marked as Q1.

More admitted signatures along with specimen of Smt. Rami Devi Bhattar, may be sent for further examination, if required."

On 23/7/2018, reply to the application filed by respondent

no. 7 for recalling the orders, wherein, allegations were made

against the counsel, was filed by Mr. Purohit denying the

averments made in the application and indicating therein that

Trilok Chand, husband of respondent no.7, came with his

Chartered Accountant Mr. Om Prakash Lohiya and paid fees for

defending the cause of Smt. Rami Devi in the writ petition, he

appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 before the Court

on 3/5/2013, prepared reply as per the instructions received from

them and Trilok Chand got signed the reply from his wife and

produced the same, which was filed in the Court and respondent

no. 7 sold the plot making huge profit. It was prayed that

prosecution be ordered against Smt. Rami Devi. The response was

supported by affidavit of counsel Mr. Purohit.

Respondent No.6 also filed additional affidavit reiterating the

indications made by Mr. Purohit and also averred that after

execution of sale deed he made known to Mr. Trilok Chand through

Mr. O.P. Lohiya that some litigation with regard to the land was

pending before the Board of Revenue. The said indication assumes

significance in view of the indication made in the sale deed

(Annex.10) executed in favour of Smt. Rami Devi by Vinod Bohra,

(6 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

wherein, it has been specifically averred that there was no

litigation pending before any court.

Trilok Chand, husband of respondent no. 7, filed his affidavit

on 9/9/2018 inter alia seeking to contradict the averments

contained in the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Bohra - respondent no. 6.

Along with the affidavit, copy of police complaint filed with the

S.H.O., P.S. Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur and a notice given

to Mr. Purohit were inter alia annexed.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard on various

applications, who reiterated the stand taken in respective

applications & replies.

A perusal of entire sequence of events as indicated

hereinbefore along with the report of SFSL, wherein it was opined

that there were dissimilarities with the admitted signatures on the

documents, however, on the specific aspect whether Smt. Rami

Devi Bhattad had signed the Vakalatnama, no definite opinion

regarding the authorship of the disputed signature has been

expressed, it is apparent that pleadings, documents etc. do not

match the stand taken by all involved.

While it is not in dispute that respondent no. 7 personally did

not meet the counsel, the common case of the counsel and

respondent no. 6 is that her husband was representing her and

got her signatures appended on Vakalatnama as well as the reply

and besides respondent No.6 Vinod bohra, one more person, Mr.

O.P. Lohiya, C.A., who is witness to the transfer by Vinod Bohra to

Smt. Rami Devi, has been introduced in support of the stand

taken regarding Trilok Chand Bhattad being well aware of the

litigation and that he got signed the Vakalatnama and the reply.

(7 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

One interesting aspect needs to be noticed that though it is

admitted in the response filed to the application to recall the

orders that Smt. Rami Devi did everything through her husband,

in the affidavit purportedly signed by Smt. Rami Devi, before the

oath commissioner she has been identified by Mr. R.S.Mali,

Advocate, whose name also appears on the Vakalatnama,

apparently as associate of Mr. Purohit.

The allegations made against the respondent no. 7 by the

counsel, for making allegations regarding not giving of

Vakalatnama and not filing of the reply, on account of her

transferring the property during the pendency of the petition

despite interim order also cannot be brushed aside lightly.

The overall conduct of all involved in the present litigation /

episode, wherein, while the petitioner added / excluded parties in

the writ petition other than who were before the Board of

Revenue, as per choice and additionally chose to implead

respondent no. 7 as party to the petition, which is in the nature of

certiorari, without her being a party before the Board of Revenue,

without expressly indicating the above aspect in the writ petition,

the respondent no. 6 transferring the property during the

pendency of the proceedings before the Board of Revenue by

indicating in the sale deed that no proceedings are pending before

any court, allegation against respondent no. 7 of being well aware

of the present litigation and having procured the Vakalatnama as

well as signatures on the reply, inability of the SFSL in giving any

definite opinion regarding authorship of the disputed signatures on

the Vakalatnama, appearance having been made before the Court

& filing of Vakalatnama and pleadings without ensuring whether

(8 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

the same contains signatures of the purported deponent by the

counsel, identifying the deponent before the oath commissioner,

apparently in her absence, though on first blush deserve initiation

of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against all involved,

however, on a objective consideration, wherein, proceedings under

Section 340 Cr.P.C. needs to be initiated if the same is 'expedient

in the interest of justice', in view of what has been observed

hereinbefore, it would not be proper for this Court to be a

complainant in a case of this nature.

However, as the respondent no. 7 has already lodged

complaint with the police filed as Annex. AA/1 with affidavit dated

9/9/2018 and it is submitted that on account of pendency of

applications before this court, the police authorities are not

proceeding in the matter, the respondent no. 7 would be free to

peruse the said complaint filed with the police and take the same

to its logical conclusion. Any observation made hereinbefore,

would not come in her way in this regard.

In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, prayer

made in application (I.A.No. 6798/2017) filed on behalf of the

respondent no. 7 seeking recall of the orders dated 5/3/2013 &

1/6/2017 is dismissed. However, the prayer for withdrawal of reply

and Vakalatnama, in view of the over all circumstances of the

case, is permitted.

It is further made clear that as the interim order dated

5/3/2013 was passed by the Court without reply of the

respondents and order dated 1/6/2017 was passed without reply

to the second stay application and as both the applications are still

(9 of 9) [CW-2284/2013]

pending, final order on both the stay applications would be passed

after hearing the parties.

The application (I.A. No. 39/2018) dated 3/1/2018 filed by

Mr. Purohit seeking permission to withdraw the Vakalatnama on

behalf of respondent no. 7 is allowed. However, the said

permission to withdraw the Vakalatnama would not prejudice the

stand of the respondent no.7 that Vakalatnama was not given in

the first place.

Application (I.A.No. 59/2018) filed by the petitioner under

Section 340 Cr.P.C. being bereft of any particulars is rejected.

Application (I.A.No. 6751/2017) filed by Dr. Arpana Kishoriya

and Dr. Naveen Kishoriya seeking impleadment as party

respondents to the present writ petition, in view of the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs.

Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Limited & Ors. : (2013) 5 SCC

397, wherein, in case of transfer made during pendency of the

proceedings, the transferee has been held to be entitled to be

impleaded as party, is allowed. They are permitted to be

impleaded as party respondent nos. 8 and 9, respectively to the

present writ petition. Amended cause title in this regard be filed

by the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one

week.

Respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 may file their reply to the writ

petition as well as stay applications within a period of four weeks

and the petition be listed thereafter for admission.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 57-baweja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)