← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/9290/2014dismissed

Vijay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-09-12Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9290 of 2014 =========================================================== Vijay Kumar Singh son of Sree Birendra Singh, resident of Village Sirsia, P.O. Jamo Bazar, District Siwan at present residing at Mohalla North East Patel Nagar, Opp. Narayan Villa Apartment, P.S. Kidwaipuri, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through Registrar Patna, Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Patna , Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna

3. M/s Pari Construction and Developer, a partnership Firm, having etc. office at Mohalla Patel Nagar, Raod No. 2, P.s. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna through it Managing Partner, Smt. Prema Kumar Singh, Wife of Sree Chanchal Sinha.

4. Smt. Prema Kumari Singh, wife of Sri Chanchal Sinha, resident of Mohalla Bari Bakalpura, P.O. and P.S. Khagaul, District Patna, the Managing Partner, M/s Pari Construction and Developer, office of East Boring Canal Road, Road No. 2, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S. K. Das, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sahnkar Kumar Thakur, AC to GP 27 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-09-2017

2/ 5 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:

" That, the application is for appropriate writ, order and direction on the respondents to register the sale deed of the petitioner which the petitioner placed for registration before the respondent no. 2 on 14th May, 2013 after due paying of registration fee through chalan."

3. Before going into the merits of the matter, the Court would like to deal with an area which is, according to the Court, is of utmost importance, i.e., maintaining the purity in judicial proceedings. Annexure-3 of the writ petition, which is purportedly copy of the deed of Absolute Sale executed by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the petitioner, on the last page only one witness has signed and he has appended the date as 14.05.2013, though at the end of the document, the person who has drafted it has also appended his signature but has put the date 13.05.2013. The Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the scanned copy which is as under:

3/ 5

4. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which there is again copy of Absolute Sale by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the petitioner. However, on the last page of the said deed, the same witness is witness no. 1 but the date is

4/ 5 missing and further there is signature at a different place of the petitioner and the date mentioned is 13.05.2013, the scanned copy of which is reproduced as under:

5. The Court is really shocked at the conduct of the petitioner. It is clear that there were two documents prepared for the reason that in the copy of the first document, the witness has given the date as 14.05.2013 whereas in the second one the same is without any

5/ 5 date and ex facie, both the documents are different. A person bringing on record documents to indicate that the same is what the petitioner has produced before the authorities and in the present case the most vital factor being as to on which date the document was executed/presented, the first document indicating that the document was itself executed on 14.05.2013 whereas the second document indicating that it was executed on 13.05.2013, the Court has no hesitation to hold that a blatant and brazen attempt has been made to mislead the Court. The Court could have proceeded against the petitioner for such act, but refrains from doing so. However, for such conduct, the petitioner having tried to play fraud, and not coming to the Court with clean hands, the Court is not inclined to go into the merits and considers it to be a fit case for the writ petition to be dismissed with cost.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-, to be deposited with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna within one week from today and receipt filed in the Registry, failing which the matter shall be placed before the Bench for appropriate orders.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U