Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, on dismissed a Civil Revision Application while observing serious irregularities in the conduct of an advocate and the presentation of allegedly fabricated documents. The court, while delivering its judgment, directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate an enquiry into the conduct of the concerned advocate.

Justice Jamdar noted that documents relied upon by the applicant to resist execution of a decree passed in 2016 were prima facie fabricated. The court also remarked on the conduct of an advocate who appeared at the last stage of the hearing and attempted to seek an adjournment despite full arguments already being concluded. The court recorded that such conduct amounted to an attempt to delay the course of justice.

Also Read: “Recovery Is Found Unsustainable”: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Deductions from Cuttack Court Stenographers Paid Under Shetty Commission Benefits Without Misrepresentation

The civil dispute traces back to 1996 when the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit against multiple defendants, alleging illegal subletting of a 990 sq. ft. commercial property situated at Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, where a hotel business was being operated. The suit was decreed in 2016 on the ground that Defendant No.1, the original tenant, had unlawfully sublet the premises first to Defendant No.2 and then to Defendant No.3 without the plaintiff’s consent. The Trial Court passed an eviction decree, which remained uncontested as no stay was obtained during the appeal process by Defendant No.3.

Following the decree, the applicant, Mr. Ballam Trifla Singh, son of Defendant No.3, filed an obstructionist proceeding under the title Obstructionist Notice No.1 of 2024 (originally filed as Marji Application No.33 of 2017). He claimed independent ownership of the premises based on a sale deed allegedly executed on 26 November 1990 by one Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali. The Trial Court and Appellate Court rejected the claim, citing lack of proof regarding the vendor’s ownership, lack of consideration, the unregistered and unstamped nature of the sale deed, and contradictions in documents submitted by the applicant.

In his affidavit and examination-in-chief, the applicant claimed possession and business ownership of the hotel premises under the name ‘Linkway Hotel’ since 1990. He stated that the property was purchased by a registered sale deed in his name when he was around 17 years of age. He submitted multiple licenses such as Shop and Establishment and Police Licenses to support his claim. However, during cross-examination, he admitted discrepancies concerning the property’s CTS number, his age at the time of the alleged transaction, and contradictory submissions made to municipal authorities.

The applicant's case was further weakened by an affidavit dated 10 August 1996 submitted to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) by one Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif. The affidavit stated that the said premises had been transferred by him via a sale deed dated 2 September 1995 to the applicant and his brothers through their father. This affidavit contradicted the sale deed of 1990 relied upon by the applicant in the obstructionist proceedings. Additionally, the vendor mentioned in the sale deed of 1990 was not supported by ownership documents.

Both the Trial Court and Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court held that the documents produced were not reliable. They found that the original sale deed mentioned CTS No. 210, while a copy previously filed mentioned CTS No. 200. The applicant failed to explain the discrepancy. It was also recorded that the applicant had submitted manipulated documents to the BMC that did not match the versions submitted in court.

Submissions in the High Court:

• Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate, instructed by Ms. Pratibha Shelke, appeared for the applicant and submitted that the applicant was in possession of the premises based on ownership acquired via a valid sale deed dated 26 November 1990.

• Anand A. Pande, appearing for Respondent No.1, opposed the plea, stating that the sale deed relied upon was not only unregistered and unstamped but also executed by a person with no title. He further pointed to contradictions in the documents and affidavits placed on record.

The court heard the matter in full on April 4, 2025. Upon being shown the discrepancies in the documents, Mr. Thorat sought time to obtain instructions regarding withdrawal of the Civil Revision Application. The court granted time until April 8, 2025. On that date, Ms. Pratibha Shelke informed the court that the applicant was not willing to withdraw the application and requested the court to proceed with the order.

On April 9, 2025, when the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle appeared, sought time to file a vakalatnama, and requested adjournment to argue the matter. The court noted that submissions had already been concluded on April 4, 2025, and found the request unjustified.

The court recorded:

"The conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate, clearly shows that he is completely aware that the matter is kept today for passing order and to ensure that the order is not passed today and the proceedings are delayed..."

Justice Jamdar referred to the professional standards for advocates and cited the Bar Council of India Rules, stating:

"An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court...An advocate shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise his own judgment..."

On the evidence submitted by the applicant, the court stated: "The sale deed is not legal and valid as the same is an unregistered and unstamped document..."

"It is clear that the entire case of the Applicant is false and the Applicant has relied on manipulated and fabricated documents..."

The court also quoted from both the Trial Court and Appellate Court findings. The Trial Court noted: "The obstructionist has produced false and fabricated documents in collusion with his father in order to frustrate the claim of the plaintiff and to avoid execution of possession warrant..."

The Appellate Court similarly stated: "The documents placed on record by the obstructionist show that the said documents are manipulated and the documents are prepared contrary to the original record..."

It was further observed that:

"More than 20 years after the original suit was filed, the decree remained unexecuted due to obstructionist proceedings initiated on fraudulent grounds, leading to nearly nine years of additional delay."

The court found that even the birth date mentioned by the applicant was inconsistent with documentation previously submitted to the authorities. These contradictions, combined with the nature of the documents, were found sufficient to dismiss the plea.

The Civil Revision Application No.189 of 2025 is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed with respect to the suit premises i.e. Hotel Linkway, Shed No.1, Shop No.1, Census No. KWX-C-19-1/1, Shukla Chawl, Near Vrindavan Chawl, New Link Road, Kajupada, Behrambaug, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400 102 with all the powers under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court Receiver shall take possession of the said suit premises forthwith and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondent No.1 – Original Plaintiff who is the Decree Holder.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Quashes PoCSO Case Against Journalists: “Voice Was ‘Jumbled’, Identity Not Disclosed”; Warns Media Against One-Sided TRP-Driven Stories

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is directed to conduct an enquiry in the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, Advocate, as referred in this judgment. It is specifically clarified that the observations made in this order regarding the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, Advocate are prima facie and all contentions are kept open to be considered in the said enquiry in accordance with law.

Stand over to 15th April 2025 at 2:30 p.m. for reporting compliance of directions issued to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Applicant: Mr. Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate, instructed by Ms. Pratibha Shelke, Mr. Vijay Kurle.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anand A. Pande, Ms. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the State.

Case Title: Ballam Trifla Singh v. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:16738

Case Number: Civil Revision Application No.189 of 2025

Bench: Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

[Read/Download order]