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 3rd application for maintenance (2nd 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appreciation of evidence matter was withdrawn from the Court of Sh.S.S.Lamba.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?
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?
