The main legal point established in the judgment is the serious implications of fraudulent and fabricated orders and documents on the administration of justice, leading to the initiation of actions for forgery, fabricating false evidence, and making false statements in a declaration.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. In Writ Petition No. 4002 of 2023 the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 1st August 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) below Exhibit-33 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 374/528 of 2011. The said application was filed by Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeking leave for production of additional documents under Order XIII Rule 1, 4 and 7 and Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of C.P.C. By impugned order, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application. Thus, production of documents were allowed and the said suit was adjourned for hearing on admissibility of documents. The order impugned in other Writ Petitions is also similar.

2. These Writ Petitions were heard in the morning session on 30th March 2023 and were rejected. As by the impugned order, merely production of documents were allowed and matter was kept for hearing on admissibility of documents it is observed in order dated 30th March 2023 that there is no prejudice caused to the Petitioners and therefore, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were dismissed, however, by said order it is clarified that all the contentions in respect of admissibility of the documents produced by the Respondents was kept open. Said order dismissing the Writ Petition was passed on 30th March 2023 in the morning session. However, at 1.32 p.m., learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay received complaint dated 30th March 2023 made by Mr. Vishwanbhar M. Parkar, Advocate having address at 1/B, 403, Saamana Parivar CHS Limited, General Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 065. The said complaint is set out herein-below:

“Dated: 30.03.2023

To,

Prothonotary and Sr. Master,

High Court, Original Side,

Mumbai.

Sir,

Ref: High Court, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction Testamentary Petition Lodging No. 589 of 2018.

On 29th March, 2023 at 6.12 pm I received WhatsApp message on my mobile from Mobile No. 9819432558 wherein I received an order of High Court allegedly passed in Testamentary Petition (Lodging) No. 589 of 2018. At that time, I was meeting with my colleague advocate at her office at Santacruz. After reading the said order carefully, I noticed that, the said order is bogus and fraudulent order. That, I had filed vakalatnama in Testamentary Petition fled by Smt. Shanti Sakla viz. Testamentary Petition No. 593 of 2018 and hence, it is my duty to bring to your office notice the said bogus and fraudulent orders. I further request your authority to take necessary action as permissible under the law.

Yours faithfully

(V.M. PARKAR)

Advocate.”

(Emphasis added)

3. In view of said complaint, learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay placed before this Court report dated 30th March 2023. The said report inter alia states as follows:

“It is respectfully further submitted that alongwith his said Complaint letter, the Advocate for Petitioner has enclosed a photocopy of some alleged true copy of some Oral Judgment in aforesaid Testamentary Petition Lodging No. 589 of 2018 purportedly passed by this Hon'ble Court with Coram: R.D. Nalawade, J. The said alleged Order does not bear any date. However, at foot of page 2, it is mentioned “Signature not verified; Digitally signed by R.D. Nalawade (J.), Date: 2019.04.09, Time: 12.30.38.” It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid Testamentary Petition No. 593 of 2018 (i.e. Testamentary Petition Lodging No. 589 of 2018) filed by said Shanti Pralhad Sakala, Petitioner abovenamed, was dismissed under Rule 435 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, as per Notice dated 25th April, 2022 for non-prosecution. It is further submitted that upon perusal of the Minutes of Orders of aforesaid Petition, the aforesaid alleged Order/Judgment