Radheshyam Jangad v. Shanti Pralhad Sakla & Ors.

6) I state that as both the aforesaid documents are available to the Public on the Site of High Court Bombay and the Site of Government of Maharashtra through Collector of Bombay respectively are deemed to be Public Documents which do not require any Proof and can be admitted at any stage under the Provisions of Order 13, Rule 3, 4, 7 and Order 16, Rule – 6, 7, 15 and 21 of the Civil Procedure Code and hence humbly pray that the same be admitted in evidence and exhibited.

7) I state that it is pertinent to note that since I am in Possession of only one single copy of the original Oral Judgement of the Bombay High Court dated 09/04/2019, I pray that the same be taken on “Record-in-Common” for all the 13 Suits wherein the Plaintiff is Common, the Suit Premises are also on the same Plot of Land and hence exhibited and admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits. Dated this 20 Day of June 2022.

VERIFICATION I Satish Pralhad Sakla for myself and as the constituted attorney of my mother Smt. Shanti Pralhad Sakla widow of Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla and my brothers Prakash Pralhad Sakla, Mukesh Pralhad Sakla, Girish Pralhad Sakla being the sons of Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla the Plaintiff above named do hereby affirmed and state on solemn affirmation and say that what is stated in the paragraphs hereinabove is true to my own knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true. Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai Dated this …...day of June 2022 Advocate for the Plaintiffs Satish Pralhad Sakla For self & constituted attorney of Plaintiff No.1, 2, 4 & 5."

6. It is significant to note that in the affidavit, it has been represented by Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla on behalf of the Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that mother Mrs. Shanti Pralhad Sakla has filed Testamentary Petition No.598 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction. It is stated that said Testamentary Petition came up for hearing on 9th April 2019 before his Lordship Justice R. D. Nalawade who passed an oral judgment in the matter. It is further stated by said Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla that he is in possession of only one copy of the original oral judgment dated 9th April 2019 of the Bombay High Court. It is further stated in the said application that, the State of Maharashtra through Collector of Bombay brought the names of Plaintiffs on record in the Property Card and uploaded the same on its site as public document. Copies of the said Property Cards are also produced along with the said application. It is further stated that both the aforesaid documents are available to the public on the site of High Court and site of Government of Maharashtra, through Collector of Bombay. Therefore, these are the public documents which do not require any proof and can be admitted at any stage under the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3, 4, 7 and Order XVI, Rule 6, 7, 15 and 21 of the C.P.C. It is further mentioned that only one original judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 9th April 2019 is in possession of said Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla and therefore, request is made to take on record oral judgment of Bombay High Court dated 9th 2019 in all 13 suits. Therefore, it is clear that it is the contention of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the said Testamentary Petition No.589 of 2018 has been disposed of by order dated 9th April 2019 of Hon’ble Lordship Justice R. D. Nalawade. The said purported order of High Court purported to have been passed by Justice R. D. Nalawade is annexed to the said application (Page 25 to 26 of Writ Petition No.4002 of 2023). Scanned copy of said order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

7. It is significant to note that said purported order purported to have been passed by Hon’ble Justice R. D. Nalawade of the Bombay High Court is purported to have been uploaded on 9th April 2019 and downloaded on 15th June 2022. On the first page of the said order, there is watermark of High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The said copy is true copy of purported order purported to have been certified by K. K. Trivedi, Company Registrar, High Court (Original Side), Bombay. It is further significant to note that the said purported order is purported to have been Nalawade on 9th April 2019 at 12:30:38. As set out in the said application, the State Government has also mutated the Property Card. The said Property Cards are also annexed to the said application and they are annexed from pages 27 to 39 of the Writ Petition No.4002 of 2023. One such Property Card at page 27 is scanned and reproduced hereinbelow for reference: -

8. As set out hereinabove, learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay received the complaint made by Advocate V. M. Parkar on 30th March 2023 stating that said order is bogus and fraudulent and that the same has never been passed in the said Testamentary Petition. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay after verifying the record of said Testamentary Petition, in the report submitted to this Court stated that after verification of the record, it is found that no such order is available in the record of said Testamentary Petition and in fact, the said Testamentary Petition has been dismissed under Rule 435 under Chapter XXVI of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 as per the notice dated 25th April 2022 for non-prosecution.

9. In view of the serious nature of the complaint, notice is issued to Advocate Ashok Kumar Dubey who has appeared for said Respondent No.3 i.e. Satish Pralhad Sakla and also Advocate Rajan Malkani who has filed the said application before the Small Causes Court (Bandra Branch), Mumbai on behalf of the Plaintiffs. By said order dated 30th March 2023, further proceedings in all the 4 suits were directed to be stayed and the learned Registrar, Small Causes Court, Mumbai was directed to immediately seal all the record and proceedings of all the aforesaid suits and submit the same to the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay by next date i.e. 31st March 2023. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were also restrained from producing said purported order dated 9th April 2019 purported to have been passed by R. D. Nalawade, J. in said Testamentary Petition or copy thereof before any Court or authority. In view of serious nature of the matter, Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

10. Learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay has also placed before this Court sitting list of High Court of Bombay Appellate Side/ Original Side w.e.f. 11th March 2019 as well as sitting list of Nagpur Bench and Aurangabad Bench and High Court of Bombay at Goa w.e.f. 11th March 2019. As per the said sitting list, Hon’ble Justice T. V. Nalawade (mentioned in said fraudulent order as R. D. Nalawade, J.) was sitting with Hon’ble Justice Mangesh Patil in Division Bench w.e.f. 11th March 2019 at Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master High Court (Original Side), Bombay who is present in Court, on instructions, stated that till May Vacation i.e. 4th May 2019, the said sitting was continued. Relevant portion of sitting list of Aurangabad Bench of High Court w.e.f. 11th March 2019 is as follows:- AURANGABAD BENCH SITTING LIST W.E.F. 11th MARCH 2019 (Partial Modification wef 12-3-2019) Sr. No. Present sitting Assignment

3. The Hon’ble Shri Justice

T. V. NALAWADE

AND The Hon’ble Shri Justice MANGESH S. PATIL For admission, hearing and order matters therein:- (A) All Criminal Appeals. (B) Applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and All Writ Petitions for quashing of FIR, C.R., Charge sheet, complaints except those assigned to

(C) All other Criminal Writ

(D) All other Criminal Work.

11. On 30th March 2023, the matter was adjourned to 10th April 2023 (First on Board). On 10th April 2023, Advocate Ashok Kumar Dubey as well as Advocate Rajan Malkani were personally present pursuant to notice issued to them. Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla was also personally present and he is the Constituted Attorney of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. He filed affidavit dated 10th April 2023. In view of the contentions raised in the said affidavit of Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla, notice was directed to be issued to Advocate V. M. Parkar and Mr. Sagar Pawar. On 10th April 2023, Respondent No.3- Satish Pralhad Sakla submitted written undertaking to this Court that he would remain present on each and every date of hearing of the petition and said undertaking was accepted by this Court. The matter was thereafter kept on 17th April 2023.

12. On 17th April 2023, Mr. V. M. Parkar, learned Advocate as well as Mr. Sagar Pawar were present. In the affidavit dated 10th April 2023 of Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla, reference is made to the total 12 suits including the 4 suits which are the subject matter of all the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Therefore, by said order dated 17th April 2023 further proceedings of all the above balance 8 suits pending before the Small Causes Court (Bandra Branch), Mumbai were directed to be stayed till further orders and record of all the 8 suits were directed to be sealed and learned Registrar Small Causes Court was directed to submit the said record to learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay by next day i.e. by 18th April 2023.

13. It is shocking to note that apart from the fraudulent order purported to have been passed by Justice R. D. Nalawade in said Testamentary Petition, fraudulent challans for payment towards Bombay High Court Testamentary Jurisdiction of Rs. 13,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.55,000/- were produced along with the said affidavit of said Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla. Scanned copies of said fraudulent challans are as follows:-

14. Apart from that, along with the said affidavit of Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla dated 10 th April 2023, order purported to have been passed by Sonali K. Dighe date 7 th February 2023 is produced. The said order is also scanned and reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

15. Along with affidavit of Manisha More at page 229, another order dated 17th November 2022 purported to have been passed by Sonali K. Dighe is produced. The scanned copy of said order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

16. Both the purported orders dated 7th February 2023 and 17th November 2022 purported to have been passed by Sonali

Testamentary Petition No.598 of 2018. The said Testamentary Petition was never placed before officer Sonali K. Dighe and she never passed aforesaid orders as per the record of said Testamentary Petition.

17. By earlier orders all the parties were directed to file affidavits and all the parties i.e. Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-Manisha More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Pawar have filed affidavits/reply/rejoinder/additional affidavit, it is significant to note that the transcript of mobile conversation between Respondent No.7- Manisha More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Pawar is produced along with affidavit dated 25th April 2023 of Ms. Manisha More. The said conversation indicates that order on which the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have relied is not the order passed by this Court. In fact, to the said affidavit, transcript of the conversation between Respondent No.8-Sagar Pawar as well as Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla is also annexed. The same shows that order purported to have been passed by Justice Nalawade is not the order passed by this Court.

18. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel who is appointed as Amicus Curiae submitted that purported order passed by this Court of Justice Nalawade as well as purported orders passed by Ms. Sonali K. Dighe, officer of this Court are forged and fabricated orders and the same is admitted almost by all the parties and therefore, criminal action is required to be taken. He also submitted that as the same affects administration of justice, suo moto issuance of notice contemplated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is also required to be directed. He pointed out Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submitted that as far as some offences are concerned, bar under Section 195 (1) (b) will not be attracted therefore, FIR can be directed to be lodged. He also submitted that as far as certain offences are concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 195 1(b), (ii) and (iii) of the Cr.P.C., it would be necessary to proceed under Section 340 of the said Code.

19. In view of serious nature of the complaint, by order dated 17th April 2023, this Court has requested learned Advocate General to assist this Court. Learned Advocate General submitted that action for contempt can be initiated. He submitted that Registrar General, High Court Bombay be directed to file FIR as well as action be taken in accordance with Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. He also submitted that if role of Advocate is noticed, then Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa can be directed to initiate appropriate action.

20. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that not only the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have produced the said fraudulent order before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai (Bandra Branch) but also on the basis of said order, changed the Property Card. He also pointed out the fraudulent challans.

21. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.8 submitted that the Cell Phone conversations between the Respondent No.8 and the Respondent No.7 and the Respondent No.8 and the Respondent No.3 are with respect to some other order and not with respect to the order purported to have been passed by Justice Nalawade in said Testamentary Petition. However, he admitted that the said order purported to have been passed by Justice Nalawade as well as orders passed by officer, Sonali K. Dighe are not the genuine orders. He pointed out the challans and tried to point out some contradictions in the affidavit of Respondent No.7-Manisha More and Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla. However, he submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, investigation is required.

22. Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that although Respondent No.3 was earlier of the opinion that the purported order dated 9th 2019 of Nalawade, J. is genuine, however, after perusal of the affidavits now Respondent No.3 is also of the opinion that order is forged and fabricated.

23. The factual position on record as reflected from the original record of Testamentary Petition and as per the record of these Writ Petitions clearly show that said purported order dated 9th April 2019 is forged and fabricated order. Even orders of officer Ms. Sonali K. Dighe of this Court are also forged and fabricated.

24. It has also come on record that the above referred E- Challans are also forged and fabricated. It is admitted position that the Court fee of Rs.16,55,000/- is not required to be paid in Testamentary Jurisdiction. Advocate Vishwanbhar Mahadev Parkar in affidavit dated 24th April 2023 has placed on record the said aspect.

25. Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. 1 He relied on paragraphs 10, 33 and 34 of the said decision. The said paragraphs read as under:-

26. He submitted that as far as certain offences are concerned, FIR can be filed and as far as certain other offences are concerned, action under Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr. P.C. is required to be initiated.

27. The Supreme Court in the decision of New Era Fabrics Limited vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri[2] discussed the scope of Section 340 read with Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr. P.C. It has been observed that the scope of inquiry as contemplated under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr. P.C. is very limited. The scope of said inquiry is just to assess whether prima facie case is made out and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the offence specified in Section 340 read with Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. has been committed and it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action.

28. The factual position on record as set out hereinabove clearly shows that purported order of this Court purported to have been passed by Justice R. D. Nalawade dated 9th 2019 is fraudulent order. It is also very clear that the purported orders dated 7th February 2023 and 17th November 2022 purported to have been passed by Sonali K. Dighe, officer of this Court are also forged and fabricated. Apart from that, E- Challans which purports that huge amounts of Rs.16,55,000/are deposited in the treasury of the State Government purported for the purpose of said Testamentary Petition are also fraudulent. Record of the Testamentary Petition shows that Court fee of only Rs.75,000/- has been deposited by E- Challan on 16th February 2018.

29. It is significant to note that none of the Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.[1] to 5 (original Plaintiffs) including Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7- Manisha Pandurang More and Respondent No.8- Sagar Shamrao Patil have contended that the above orders and Echallans or at least some of these documents are genuine documents.

30. As held by the Supreme Court in New Era Fabrics Limited (supra) inquiry contemplated under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr. P.C. is just to assess whether prima facie case is made out and that there is reasonable likelihood that the offence specified in Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. has been committed and it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action. This is a case where fraudulent order purported to have been passed by this Court is prepared and it has been represented to all the concerned that the same is the order passed by this Court.

31. The learned Advocate General and learned Amicus Curiae both are right in contending that this also amounts to interference in the administration of justice and therefore, action for committing contempt of this Court is also required to be initiated. The said aspect will be considered on further dates.

32. For the above reasons, learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, Original Side, High Court Bombay or any officer of this Court of the rank of Additional Registrar/Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master authorized by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay to file complaint with the jurisdictional Magistrate as I am prima facie satisfied that offence of forgery, fabricating false evidence and making false statement in a declaration which is receivable as evidence, offences under the Information Technology Act etc. are made out against Respondent No.3- Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-Manisha Pandurang More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Shamrao Pawar and some unknown persons.

33. Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7- Manisha Pandurang More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Shamrao Pawar to furnish surety/cash security before the learned Registrar (Judicial-I), Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay to the tune of Rs.15,000/- each for the appearance before such Magistrate as contemplated under Section 340 (1)

(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as and when summoned.

34. The Respondent No.6-State of Maharashtra and Prothonotary and Senior Master, (Original Side), High Court Bombay to submit report on or before 12th June 2023 to this Court.

35. It is clarified that as far as the direction regarding suo moto issuance of contempt as well as other actions will be considered on the next date.

36. It is clarified that undertaking given by Respondent No.3- Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-Manisha Pandurang More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Shamrao Pawar that they will appear before this Court on each and every date shall continue till further orders.

37. Stand over to 12th June 2023 (First on Board). [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]