Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 646
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.R.CALLA, RAVI R.TRIPATHI
KANTIBHAI NANUBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
URBAN LAND CEILING TRIBUNAL - Respondent
L.P.A. 1477 of 1997
Decided On : 09/01/2001
Headnote:
Civil Application –Patent Appeal is filed by Patel and Another original petitioner in Special Civil Application being aggrieved of judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in said petition dated learned advocate appearing for appellants submitted that order of learned Single Judge is in two parts – Learned Single Judge has recorded that advocate for petitioner had stated that he had appeared at notice stage and thereafter his junior had appeared at time when rule was issued and then papers were taken away by fact is recorded in order It is thereafter that filed an affidavit dated it is stated that papers were handed over to other advocate on record has also filed an affidavit stating that papers were taken away from him as stated by him in his telegram dated about one and half years ago with a view to engage was required by order dated to file a Note dated it is stated that having gone through his office record he is unable to find any such matter in which he is said to have been engaged by petitioners of this petition – Court has also recorded that petitioner Patel was present and stated that other petitioner Patel has gone abroad – Held, considered case of parties as above – It is very clear from discussion as above that appellants herein have no We entirely agree with reasons given learned Single Judge and in our considered view reasons given by the learned Single Judge in support of his judgment and order were sufficient to reject the petition – Although appellants have tried to absolve themselves from the controversy with regard to the forged certified copy of the judgment of this Court, in the facts of this case, we find that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of Constitution while hearing a Special Civil Application is extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. If the conduct of any party is vulnerable towards allegations of forging a document, such a party even otherwise is not entitled to touch the pure fountain of justice with soiled hands – Learned Judge has observed that except petitioners there could not be any other party to be the beneficiary of this forgery – One who has tried or even alleged to have used a forged judgment for purpose of obtaining a order in his cannot be held to be entitled to seek a writ petition to carry a writ – We, therefore, find that the view taken in this regard does not warrant any interference. Even otherwise also it is clear from adjudication of various points above that appellants have no case on learned Judge has observed that except the petitioners there could not be any other party to be beneficiary of this forgery – One has tried or even alleged to have used a forged judgment for purpose of obtaining a order in his cannot be held to be entitled to seek a writ petition to carry a writ taken in this regard does not warrant any interference. Even otherwise also it is clear from the adjudication of various points above that the appellants have no case on merits – Application is dismissed.
( 1 ) THE present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by Kantilal Nanubhai Patel and another, original petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 3322 of 1994 being aggrieved of the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said petition dated 19. 9. 1997. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is in two parts. In the first part the learned Single Judge has recorded that, mr. S. V. Bachani, advocate for the petitioner had stated that he had appeared at notice stage and thereafter his junior, Mr. K. K. Trivedi had appeared at the time when rule was issued and then papers were taken away by Mr. K. K. Trivedi, which fact is recorded in the order dated 27. 8. 1997. It is thereafter that Mr. Bachani filed an affidavit dated 12. 9. 1997 in which it is stated that the papers were handed over to Mr. Jariwala, the other advocate on record. Said Mr. Jariwala has also filed an affidavit stating that the papers were taken away from him, as stated by him in his telegram dated 20. 8. 1997 about one and half years ago, with a view to engage Mr. P. M. Thakkar. Mr. P. M. Thakkar was required by order dated 27. 8. 1997 to file a Note dated 16. 9. 1997 wherein it is stated that, "having gone through his office record he is unable to find any such matter in which he is said to have been engaged by the petitioners of this petition. The Court has also recorded that, petitioner no. 2, Ratilal Nanubhai Patel, was present and stated that the other petitioner, Kantilal Nanubhai Patel has gone abroad. He further stated that he leaves the matter on the Court to render decision in this petition. Thereafter, the Court requested Mr. M. C. Shah, learned advocate who was present representing Mr. Jariwala (the advocate on record for petitioners) to assist the Court in the hearing of the petition and he was good enough to argue the petition for the petitioners. Relevant portion of para 3 of the judgement is reproduced for ready perusal:"at the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel Mr. Jariwala, who along with learned counsel Mr. Bachhani had filed this petition, has submitted that the papers were taken away from him by the petitioners. The learned counsel Mr. Bachhani had, on an earlier occasion when the matter was called out on 27. 8. 1997 stated that he had appeared at notice stage and thereafter, his junior Mr. K. K. Trivedi had appeared at the time when rule was issued and then the papers were taken away by Mr. K. K. Trivedi, which fact is recorded in the order dated 27. 8. 97. An affidavit dated 12. 9. 1997 has been filed by Mr. Bachhani to this effect, in which it is stated that the papers were handed over to Shri Jariwala, the other advocate on record. Mr. Jariwala has filed an affidavit stating that the papers were taken away from him as stated by him in his telegram dated 20th August 1997 about one and a half years back, with a view to engage Mr. P. M. Thakkar. Mr. P. M. Thakkar, on being required by order dated 27. 8. 97 has filed a note dated 16. 9. 97, stating that having gone through his office record, he is unable to find any such matter in which he is said to have been engaged by the petitioners of this petition. The petitioner no. 2 is present and states that the other petitioner Kantilal has gone abroad. he has stated that he leaves the matter on the Court to render decision in this petition. Therefore, Mr. M. C. Shah who was present representing Mr. Jariwala, was requested to assist the Court in the hearing of this petition and he has been good enough to argue the petition for the petitioners
( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge then considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners on merits. Learned Judge while considering the contentions raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities recorded that the petition was filed in the year 1994, challenging the impugned order made
