Back
Flags of Its Order, Orders Investigation Into 'Interim Stay' Addition
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the has taken of an apparent of one of its own orders, directing both the court's Registrar General and the to investigate the matter. The case arose from a petition by Smt. Meena Devi and another individual alleging on a complaint of aimed at grabbing property in Khera Khurd.
The Property Dispute and Alleged
The petitioners claimed that unknown persons had committed serious to illegally take over a property bearing Khasra No. 307, measuring 175 square yards, located in the extended Lal Dora of Village Khera Khurd, Delhi. They approached the court seeking directions to the police to act on their complaint dated , made to the .
A Startling Discovery: The Fabricated 'Interim Stay'
During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel drew the court's attention to an order purportedly passed by the High Court on , in RSA 101/2024. The actual order, as retrieved from court records, simply granted time to the respondents' counsel to seek instructions and listed the matter for , while directing the record to be requisitioned.
However, the version produced before the court contained an additional paragraph—paragraph 4—stating: “.” The difference was glaring. The court immediately flagged the discrepancy.
Court's Observations: 'Some Unknown Person Seems to Have Fabricated'
The judge compared both orders and observed:
"A bare perusal of the above would reveal that some unknown person seems to have fabricated the order passed by this Court and added para. 4 containing the words ' '."
The court emphasized that this aspect required thorough investigation and appropriate action.
Directions for Investigation
The court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the Registrar General of the , enclosing copies of both the actual and fabricated orders. If such a complaint is filed, the Registrar General was directed to take it to its logical conclusion.
Additionally, the court permitted the petitioners to submit a separate representation to the . The Commissioner was specifically directed to inquire into all aspects and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
Implications and Next Steps
The case highlights the seriousness of and the court's willingness to act decisively to protect the integrity of its proceedings. While the petitioners' original grievance regarding property fraud remains pending, the court has now opened a parallel inquiry into the of its own order. All rights and contentions of the parties were left open.
The matter is now set for further investigation by both the police and the court's administrative machinery.
