A STICH IN TIME SAVES NINE

MY BROTHER "Z" PURCHASED A PERMANENT LEASED LAND (WITH SALE TRANSFER RIGHTS)FROM "X & Y" TWO BROTHERS IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2008. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS EARLIER OWNED BY THEM AS TEMPORARY LEASE WHICH GOT EXPIRED IN JUNE 2003. THE SAME WAS APPLIED TO COLLECTOR CUTTACK ORISSA BY X & Y FOR RENEWAL  AND GOT IT RENEWED IN 2008 MAY.

X & Y HAD EARLIER IN THE YEAR 2002 HAD EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF "A" FOR ONWARD TRANSFER TO HIS WISE "B" .A BRANDED TOUT AND ATLEAST 100 NBW ARE PENDING AGAINST HIM NOW APART FROM MANY OTHER SUIT AND FORGERY CASES PENDING AGAINST HIM. A IS ABSCONDING FROM POLICE RECORD SINCE 2006. THERE IS A VIGILANCE CASE PENDING AGAINST HIM AND A HIGHLY SOCIALLY CONNECTED FELLOW AS WELL.

UPTILL JUNE 2003 THE MONTH OF EXPIRY OF EARLIER LEASE "A" COULD NOT ACT UPON THE POA. AND AFTER THAT OWNER "X & Y"HAD APPLIED FOR RENEWAL OF THE SAME.

THE ADJACENT PLOT TO THE ABOVE DISPUTED PROPERTY IS OWNED BY ME AND LOOKING AT THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPERTY MY BROTHER "Z" PURCHASED THE SAME AND BOUGHT THE SAME FROM "X & Y". BEFORE BUYING IN JUNE 2008 THE REGISTERED POA EXECUTED BY "X & Y" IN 2002 WAS CANCELLED IN THE SAME DSR OFFICE WHERE IT WAS EXECUTED WITH DUE NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST/AD TO THE POA HOLDER BY "X & Y"(WHICH RETURNED BACK WITH REMARK ABSENT 3 TIMES). TO NOTE THE POA CANCELLED BY THE OWNERS AFTER THEY GOT IT RENEWED IN THEIR NAME FROM COLLECTOR CUTTACK, ORISSA.IN MAY 2008.

THE NEIGHOUR OF THE ABOVE DISPUTED PROPERTY WANTED TO PLAY A MISCHEVIOUS ROLE AND EXECUTED AN NOTORISED AGREEMENT WITH THE POA HOLDER "A" IN JULY 2008. SUBSEQUENTLY WHILE MY BROTHER "Z" WAS IN PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE MONTH OF FEB 2009 THE NEIGHOUR "D" OBJECTED THE SAME AND CREATED DISTURBANCE SEVERAL TIMES WITH A PLEA THAT HE IS HAVING PROPER DOCUMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ENJOY THE SAME. DESPITE OUR REQUEST AND APPEAL SEVERAL TIMES NOT TO CREAT DISTURBANCE IN OUR PEACEFULL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY "D" NEVER STOPPED THE SAME. AND AT LAST "Z" APPROACHED THE DCP COURT UNDER 144(2) OF CRPC IN FEB 2009 AND ORDERED STATUS QUO TILL AWAITING POLICE REPORT. THE COURT ASKED FOR THE POLICE REPORT AND POLICE CAME TO THE SPOT FOR ENQUIRY AND SUBMITTED THE REPORT THAT "Z" IS IN PEACEFUL POSSESSION WITH A VALID SALE DEED. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING "D" INTERVENED AND FILED A W/S SAYING SOMEWHERE IN 1968 HIS FOREFATHERS HAD PURCHASED THE LAND AND SINCE THEN HE IS IN POSSESSION AND DIDNOT MENTION ABOUT THE NOTORISED AGREEMENT WHICH WAS MADE IN  JULY 2008. COURT ORDERSUBSEQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE PARTY KEPT ON TAKING TIME WITH DIFFERENT PLEA AND AT LAST ON THE 90TH DAY ANOTHER W/S WAS FILED BY THE "D" WITH AN AGREEMENT TO SALE IN FEB 2008 (ANTE DATED) BETWEEN "A" AND "D" IN A PLAIN 10/- STAMP PAPER WHERE POSSESSION IS BEING DELIVERED BY "A" TO "D" FOR RS.1 LAC AND REMAINING 10,000/- OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION (TIME LIMIT FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED WAS WITHIN ONE YEAR TIME FROM AGREEMENT).

THE COURT ORDERED STATUS QUO AND DIRECTED BOTH THE PARTIES TO MOVE CIVIL COURT.IN THE MEANTIME "Z" FILED REVISION PETITION AT HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND LISTED AFTER 2DAYS AND THE HONBLE COURT REFERED TO ANOTHER BENCH AND ATLAST MATTER DROPPED DUE TO TIME BAR.

IN THE MEAN TIME  AND "D" FILED A CIVIL SUIT UNDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WITH ANOTHER PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST "A","X & Y" AND "Z" . "X & Y" AND "Z" APPEARED BEFORE THE COURT AND "A" DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMON AND TILL DATE NOT APPEARED A HE IS ABSCONDING AND ABSENT IN THE ADDRESS AT HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS.

ON THE INJUNCTION ORDER THE HONBLE JUDGE SH. S.SWAIN  CIVIL  JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION,CUTTACK    ORDERED STATUS QUO AND LATER "D" APPEALED FOR PLEADER COMMISSION AND COMMISSION APPOINTED AND SPOT VERIFIED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS AND SUBMITTED HIS REPORT, BUT LATER IT IS REVELAED THAT PLEADER COMMISSIONER DID NOT SUBMIT THE SIGNATURE OF BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS WHILE ACTUALLY IT WAS TAKEN HIM ON THE SPOT.

"D" OPPOSED THE REPORT AS IT WAS NOT CONDUSIVE TO HIM WHERE PLEADER COMMISIONER HAD REPORTED  "Z" EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY. AND NOW THE COUNSEL OF "D" WANTS TO EXAMINE THE PLEADER COMMISSION.

ITS WORTH TO MENTION HERE THAT THE SIGNATURE OF "A" IN THE AGREEMENT IS APPARENT TO THE NECKED EYE THAT ITS A FORGED ONE AS IN THE MEANTIME "Z" SOMEHOW OBTAINED A LEGAL DOCUMENT WHERE "A' IS AN WITNESS AND HAS SIGNED WITH THUMB IMPRESSION BEFORE A DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR.

I REQUEST THE LEARNED MEMBERS/EXPERTS TO GUIDE ME TO HELP MY BROTHER "Z" TO GET OUT OF THIS FABRICATED LITIGATION.