logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 1180 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Case No : Interim Application No. 2829 of 2025 In Suit No. 25 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARIF S. DOCTOR
Parties : Rekha Parmanand Jindal Versus Shylender Jindal & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Ryan D’souza & Shivam Laturiya & Sujit Bhuyare i/b Shivam Laturiya, Advocates. For the Defendants: Vikramaditya Deshmukh a/w Priya Chaubey i/b Sapna Rachure, D6, Hitendra Parab a/w Sanket Lohote i/b Harsh Parte, Purvi Shah, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 18-06-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Interim Application
- Recall of Orders
- Forgery
- Fabrication
- Inquiry
- Investigation
- Cyber Cell

3. Summary:
The applicant, who is Defendant No. 1, filed an interim application seeking recall of two earlier interim orders on the ground that he was not heard before they were passed. He alleges that his appointed advocate, Additional Respondent No. 2, forged and fabricated the orders and sent falsified copies to him. The additional respondent denies the allegation and claims the applicant fabricated the documents. The court held that the origin of the forged orders must be investigated. It directed the Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the police and cyber cell and to conduct an inquiry, with a report to be filed within four weeks. The court clarified that it has not considered the merits of the allegations and that the interim application will be heard after the inquiry is completed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. An extremely grave and serious issue has been brought to the notice of this Court in the present Interim Application.

2. The Applicant, who is Defendant No. 1 to the captioned Suit, has filed the present Interim Application seeking recall of the Orders dated 24th January 2025 and 7th February 2025 passed by this Court in Interim Application No. 1538 of 2025, essentially on the ground that the Applicant was not heard before the said Orders were passed.

3. It is the case of the Applicant that the Applicant had appointed the Additional Respondent No. 2 as his Advocate and that the Additional Respondent No. 2 had forged and/or fabricated the Orders of this Court, more particularly set out at Exhibits ‘E’ and ‘F’ of the Interim Application and sent the same to the Applicant instead of the Orders passed by this Court and of which recall has been sought for in the present Application, and which are annexed at Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘G’ to the present Application.

4. The Additional Respondent has appeared in person and has denied any such allegations of forgery and/or fabrication at her end. She submitted that the forgery/fabrication was at the hands of the Applicant. Mr. D’souza, Learned Counsel denied this and submitted that the Applicant was open to facing any inquiry into such allegations.

5. In my view, before proceeding further in the matter, the issue of how and at whose instance the Orders annexed at Exhibits ‘E’ and ‘F’ have come into existence is crucial and must be investigated into. I therefore passed the following Order.

ORDER

i. Let the Registrar General of this Court lodge an appropriate complaint with the competent police authorities as well as the Cyber Cell, and to take all necessary steps for conducting an inquiry into the circumstances in which the Orders annexed at Exhibits ‘E and ‘F’ have come into existence.

ii. Let a report be placed before this Court in four weeks.

iii. It is clarified that I have not considered the merits of any allegations made by the parties in the present Interim Application.

iv. The Interim Application shall be taken up for consideration after completion of the inquiry.
 
  CDJLawJournal