LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Krishnamurti   03 August 2022

Judgement reversed based onfraudulent by witness of plantff advocate

A corporation serves notice for demolition  of encroachment on a defaulting resident  of a flat complex The defaulter seeks stay order from a court. Corporation waits for judgement as a defendent. The appellant cum defaulter completes his encroachmemt by stalling the court for 13 months in following manner

1.indulgence in continuimg the illegal construction without approval from corporation. This he does when his own appeal for stay is under enquiry by court

2.The court admonishes defaultor for requesing a frivolous stay order on corporation demolition notice and dismisses the case. 

3.plantiff merrilly continues encroachmemt and appeals against judgement not in his favour.

4.court reverses earlier judgement in favour of defaulter plantiff. Court admits a deposition by a witness newly brought by advocate of encroacher. By that time encroacher had competed his encroachement. Because the fraud witness said he is a witness of alleged encroached area that already existed 25 years ago. Encroacher advocate pleads that the corporation demolition notice is time barred and frivolous  action of Corporation

5. Court ignores evidences produced by corporation with photographs, reviews by town planning, inspection by another court linked to same case which was produced by corporation. Corporation also had produced complaints to police at DCP level. In earlier hearings stalled by encroacher to complete his encroachmemt

6.How can the same court close the case which had 20 hearing , later iprobably in a single hearing

7.The defending party was the corporation commissioner. His successor initiates internal actions from joint commissioner who never responds as usual five years before. Commissioner seems to be helpless

8.All case papers which existed in digital records. Of court website have disappears..

What has actually happened?

The name  of a resident in grief appears in court records as the initiator of complaint with corporation at all levels in corporation and police and Lokayukta

What action should be taken by Commissioner of corporation and lokayukta who seems to be aware of this.

What remedy for an ordinary senior citizen who started this and threatened by encroacher, an advocate by profession, of emerging consequenses of undesirable results to Sr citizen and his family




 2 Replies

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     03 August 2022

Why did corporation wait for 13 months for "stay" order for demolition notice issued upon encroacher.??

Prima facie there is connivence of corporation and encroacher.

The case/ suit instituted by encroacher for grant of injunction is stated to have been "dismissed", implies there is no case.

What is the opinion and advise of lawyer engaged by corporation and / or encroacher, if it is a true story.

Prima facie it is an unbelievable and fabricated story.

Krishnamurti   03 August 2022

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/judgement-reversed-based-onfraudulent-by-witness-of-plantff-advocate-225325.asp

Sub Judgement reversed based on fraudulent deposition by a witness of plantff's advocate- Subject edited slightly

Response in seriatum

1.Why did corporation wait for 13 months for "stay" order for demolition notice issued upon encroacher.??

    The  original complainant , an aggrieved citizen , got informed verbally by the corporation itself ,that stay order was  obtained by encroacher on a day before the corporation planned to demolish as per rules and after serving show cause notice under Corporation rules. The Corporation had to wait for 6 months .as otherwise it was subjudice with court hearings in process with more than 15 times postponements . After 12 months Encroacher appealed again  preventing the corporation to act. Eight months after that the court reversed the earlier judgement . This was in favour of encroacher . . Another 8 months passed . The alleged false witness facilated the reversal for advoacate  engineered this This needs recheck as all records were not easily understable . It was neither English Nor Hindi

2 Prima facie there is connivence of corporation and encroacher

Unlikely . This could be so after 14 months. The corporation did not re-appeal against the new judgement.    The engineers from ward level to commisioner level and Chief Legal and the advocate representing the corporation did an excellant job of documentation  with unquestionable honesty and integrity .   And the observations on the justification sought by the corporation were also documented by the court as part of first judgement order .Court  also did an excellant job.On what ground the second judgement came  rejecting corporation evidences ,despite  photographic evidences given Viz                   

a) Corporation ( Ward , Engg, Town Planning , Legal, advocate)  )                                                                                  b),Lokayukta Engineers and probably theri polce who took photograph of  progress of encroachment , which was three months after Corporation served  show cause/ Sanction order notice to encroacher

3. The case/ suit instituted by encroacher for grant of injunction is stated to have been "dismissed", implies there is no case.-

Agreed, the timing od dismissal and interpretation of underlying causes needs an investigation by a detective of police dept

4. What is the opinion and advise of lawyer engaged by corporation and / or encroacher, if it is a true story.? 
 It is a true story . But interpretation of available documents need revalidation. The court papers are not easily accessible

Again  a) advocate engaged by corporation - The client of advocate of Plantiff (encroacher ) is also an advocate . Both advocates are no match for IQ level and experience of these two advocates . Besides, corporation gave up. Probably due to  busy top  management having very poor management control systems to weed out corruption at different levels below them .The top management problem of corruption redressal are  of a much much larger size and this case is  insignificant for corporation. The ROI in larger issues may be 10000 times than ROI  of a small case like tihis   The corporation had no other alternative but to puesue this case,  as it was initiated by the lowest officer at ward level , fighting corruption  above his level and did not give up.. He got transferred out of ward and subsequent postings multple times . This delayed responses to court from corporation.

5. Prima facie it is an unbelievable and fabricated story.

 It is a true story  worth filning for general public . May be some Director will spot the story . 

No matter how long it takes, no matter where SINNERS hide ,if they are threat to humanity, Lord  will find them and take them out   

Dr J C Vashishta (Advocate)  take up this and get into it as PIL if you can challenge two advocates of high IQ and experience . Contact me

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register