Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.09.2025
HARSH KUMAR KAUSHIK .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. K. A. Nagamani, Mr. S. N.
Kaushik, Advs.
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition was initially filed as an Appeal and thereafter directions were passed to convert the Appeal into Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by an order dated 06.08.2025. The challenge in the present Petition is to the orders dated 02.06.2025 and 04.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 passed by the Ld. PO, MACT, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, in MACT 118/2018 titled as Harsh Kumar Kaushik Vs Rakesh Saroj & Ors.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying on Ex. R1W1/A submits that the reason for filing the Application to reject the evidence and initiate suitable action was done because the copy that was supplied to the Petitioner and which has been placed on record showed that a previous affidavit of the said Shri Rakesh Saroj was taken and simply handmade corrections were made including change of dates. She submits that the intent of the Petitioner in filing the Application was to bring this aspect of the matter on record.
3. An examination of Ex. R1W1/A as produced in the paper book shows that the Affidavit appears to have previously been filed in a different matter in the year 2018 which was photocopied and handwritten corrections were made and re-filed on 27.05.2025. It is apposite to extract the relevant evidence by way of affidavit of deponent below:
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterates that the Petitioner only intended to point out this fallacy as an incorrect Application was filed to bring this to the notice of the Court, however, the Petitioner had no intent to delay the proceedings.
5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent obtained a certified copy of a previous affidavit and got it attested again.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that she shall place on record a fresh affidavit duly attested in accordance with law within two weeks from today.
7. Given, what is stated above, this Court deems it apposite to set aside the costs that have been imposed on the Petitioner. Both the parties are cautioned not to take these proceedings before the Trial Court lightly.
8. The Petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. The pending Application stands closed.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Tg/ha