← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/5380/2019

Vijay Kapoor v. The High Court Of Delhi

2019-05-17Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru2 pages

$~45 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5380/2019 VIJAY KAPOOR ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Sanjoy Ghose and Ms Urvi Mohan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 17.05.2019 CM No.23651/2019 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5380/2019 2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that an official inquiry be conducted in respect of tampering of a document dated 11.08.2004. The said document was placed in the records of the suit captioned 'Smt. Seema Thakur v. Union of India and Ors.: CS (OS) No. 100 of 2010'. It is the petitioner's case the document was a declaration issued by one Shri Gopi Chand (defendant no. 3 in the said suit). The petitioner alleges that after the said document had been filed the same was tampered with by the defendant, inasmuch as, the signature of Sh Gopi Chand had been overwritten and a thumb impression was put below the said signatures. The petitioner claims that such tampering is evident since he had

already obtained the certified copies of the documents, prior to said tampering.

3.

In the aforesaid context, the petitioner had filed a complaint seeking that an inquiry be conducted. The petitioner's complaint was examined at the administrative side of this Court and the same was directed to be filed for the reason that the complaint had been made belatedly. More importantly, the suit filed in question was decreed. The appeal against the said decree was also dismissed. The SLP preferred before the Supreme Court was also rejected.

4.

It is noticed that the suit was decreed on 19.08.2015 and the petitioner had filed a complaint some time in 26.05.2018. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity with the decision to not take any further action on the complaint on the ground that it was belated. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5.

Needless to state that all rights and contentions of the petitioner in respect of the said document are reserved and the rejection of the petitioner's complaint would not preclude the petitioner from asserting his contention before an appropriate court/forum. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 17, 2019 MK