What happened in Appeal.

9.1.96 Rajni files application for maintenance and falsely states "She has no movable or immovable property and has no source of income", even though Rajni is an income tax Assessee.

       

1.6.96 Rajni files complaint u/s 125 CrL.P.C.  for maintenance and again falsely states that she has no income or property for her maintenance.

       

14.6.96 In reply, I state that Rajni is an income tax Assessee having filed her Income Tax Returns regularly from A.Y. 1990-91 onwards upto the date of filing of present petition.hence there is no case for maintainance.

3.8.96       Rajni unconditionally gives up her claim for maintenance and litigation expenses by moving an application for withdrawal of her application for maintenance.  Her statement is recorded and application for maintenance is dismissed.        

10.8.96: Her complaint u/s 125 CrL P.C. seeking maintenance is also dismissed.

11.11.97   Application for appointment of Local commissioner to prepare Inventory of Joint Locker (which application goes to the root of the matter) is dismissed.

22.8.98 Rajni files 3^rd application for maintenance (2^nd in this court)and again falsely states that She has no income and is unable to bear the expenses of proceedings. 

       

12.9.98 I detailed reply that second application for maintenance is barred by Res-judicata and states that Rajni’s:

(i) Income for assessment year 91-92 was 45,400/-.

(ii) Income for assessment year 92-93 was 41,300/-.

(iii)  Her income for assessment year 93-94 was  36,600/-

(iv)  Her income for assessment year 94-95 was   1,00,000/-.

30.9.98  S.S.Lamba ADJ grants Rs.3,500/-  to  her plus Rs.500/- to her towards car and telephone. Grants litigation expenses at Rs.12,000/ which  were unconditionally given up earlier. This is same order which Padam Kumar jain had informed my lawyer a week earlier which I in turn had informed the inspection judge the same day that is a week earlier.

i)      During course of proceedings Sh.S.S.Lamba ADJ threatened witnesses of the Respondent. Statements of the Rajni and their witnesses were twisted. Statements in favor of the Me Iwere deliberately left out. Statements of Me Iwitnesses was also not correctly recorded and/or changed. He had adopted threatening attitude. Certain private investigations were conducted and certain evidence of Connivance of said Judge with parents of Rajni through ex Chairman Deptt of laws and B B Parsoon was brought to the notice of the appropriate authority. After appreciation of evidence matter was withdrawn from the Court of Sh.S.S.Lamba. His order dated 30.09.98 has following unique features.

A.     Res-judicata is given go bye.

A      Income Tax assessee is held to be unable to maintain her self.

B      Income is being divided 45:55 in favour of wife.

D      Maintenance Litigation Expenses are being granted when the same were voluntarily given up earlier.

E      My income is assumed even though my IT Returns were available.

       

3.10.1998  Case is withdrawn from his court.

       

Oct 98 I file civil revision No.4298/98. 

Lunch Time 21.12.98. In Chamber of Hon'ble Judge  

asked me to agree for 13B. I decline. Thereafter appeal is disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court upon my "consent" that I agree to pay litigation expenses and maintenance as per order dated 30.9.1998 at Rs.12,000/- and  Rs.3,500/  No consent was ever given by me either orally or in writing at any point of time. 

       

Post Lunch Time 21.12.98.

Court was requested that there being no consent so "consent" be not stated. I was told that since order stands dictated (not signed), I should file an application.

       

22.12.98. Counsel moved an application alongwith my affidavit that no consent was sought or given.  Relevent para is reproduced hereunder:

"Para 5 That no such consent was sought or given by me. Rather there is no question of such consent being given and is contradictory to the prayer made in the present Revision Petition. This fact is also apparent from the fact that case was fully argued on 16.11.98. The fact that no consent was given was also brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court immediately after lunch through the Reader concerned as the Court had already retired and I was informed that since the order has already been dictated, I should file an application. Hence the present Application.

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the order Dated 21.12.98 may kindly be recalled and the case may be decided in accordance with law as per merits."

       

24.12.98. Court desires Senior Advocate to appear and make request. case is adjourned to 8.1.99.

       

8.1.99. Senior Advocate makes statement at Bar in support of application and states that facts are known to the Court. He requested the court to decide the case on merits. However his statement is not recorded and he is asked to file his own Affidavit. His presence is recorded in proceedings Dt. 8.1.99 However what is stated by him is not recorded and following order is passed: -

"Sh. Harbhagwan Singh Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.D.Aggarwal Advocate

Mr. Padam Jain Advocate

Relist on 11.01.99

                   Sd/ V.S. Aggarwal/ Judge."

       

9.1.99. Above facts are brought on record by way of CM 195/99 and it is stated as under: -

       

"1.  That this Hon'ble Court had observed on 24.12.98 that in case Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate would make a request even orally, the case shall be decided in accordance with law and the case was there after adjourned to 8.1.99 for the said purpose.

       

2. That, on 8.1.99 Sh.Harbhagwan Singh, Sr.  Advocate appeared in this Court and made a statement at Bar that the case may kindly be decided on merits. It was also stated by him at the Bar that the facts are quite apparent to the Court and it was again requested by Sh Harbhagwan Singh that the Court may decide the case in accordance with law on merits.

       

4.  That court has now asked Sh. Harbhagwan Singh Sr. Advocate to file his affidavit.

       

5.  That it is well established law and practice that Sr. Advocates do not make sworn statements and even the statements made by them at the Bar are recorded through their counsel.  In this view of the matter and keeping in view the dignity of the Sr. Advocate, the assisting counsel namely the applicant is filling the affidavit again which may kindly be taken on record.

       

6.  That it was observed by Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr, Advocate that since he has made statement at Bar his office would not file any affidavit as the value of their affidavit is negligible in view of his own statement at the Bar.  Even otherwise at the time of the order it was dictated in the Chamber then only five were present i.e. this Hon'ble Court namely. Sh. Harbhagwan Singh Sr. Advocate, the applicant, Sh P.K. Jain advocate and his client."

       

Proceedings Dt 8.1.99 and above CM is not considered in the final order.

       

27.1.99 Hon'ble Court desires that application be amended to incorporate provisions of order 23 Rule 3 CPC which Bars Courts to pass order on the basis of agreement which are not before the court in writing and signed by parties. In view of law laid by this Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in PLR 1988 Vol.2 page 365 such agreements which are mentioned in proceedings of the court but are not before the court in writing are void.

24.2.99     Amended application is taken on record. On 21.12.98 Rajni had shed fake tears before the then Judge.  After the order was passed and when parties came out she started laughing and asked her counsel as to how was her acting. Her counsel Sh. P.K. Jain patted her and said very good.  The fact that she had merely enacted a tutored Drama was also brought to the notice of the Then Hon'ble Judge in C.M. 16027/98 for recall of the Order Dt. 21.12.98 and in Para 10 it was stated as Under.:

"That the My wife had deliberately stated incorrect facts to this Hon'ble Court in Chambers on 21.12.98. She had enacted tutored Drama with fake tears which had the desired effect."

       

23.3.99 The application for deciding the case on merits is dismissed. It is stated as under.:

“Taking up the assertion of the applicant as to whether consent to such an order has been given or not, the record reveals that the applicant was represented by a Senior advocate. He was in a position to make statement on behalf of applicant. It is not even alleged by the said senior advocate that he did not consent to such an order.“ 

The above statement is contradictory with order dt. 21.12.98 and proceedings dt 8.1.99.

That the local commissioner visited the Bank and submitted his report to this court on 16.2.99 and reported that it was found to be empty. Key of the locker was supplied by Father of the Rajni wife.  Thus the allegation leveled by the applicant were proved that the entire contents of the locker including my family’s ancestral gold worth more than twelve lacks (now worth more than 5 crores) were taken away by Rajni.

            

Kapil Dev Aggarwal.

Click here for;

What I Didn't Knew.! 

List of dates and events. 

False Allegations to Loot Husband. 

In-Laws Indebtedness 

Evidence of theft of my property worth approx Rs 50000000 

What happened in Appeal? 

Lies of jagan nath of BK Jagan & Co to use her 6th daughter to earn money by looting 4th family of their property.

Gopal Singhal,Sector 28, Chandigarh used her sister to save from Bankruptcy

When Brij Singhal Lied.