Despite invalid affidavits, court admits case

VADODARA: How did a Vadodara court admit a case based on invalid affidavits? At a time when the judiciary in Gujarat is agog with cases of bogus warrants and affidavits, notaries of the Vadodara sessions court notarised two invalid stamp-papers recently.
The matter becomes all the more serious as license of the stamp vendor had been cancelled nearly two years ago! Despite this, the court admitted the case and issued an order to be reviewed at a later date.
The case came to light when Amrutlal Patel filed affidavits in the court of civil judge R G Parekh in a dispute relating to a shop in Alkapuri area. The affidavits were produced on January 26, 2004.
Copies of both affidavits, available with The Times of India, show that the stamp papers were issued on December 7, 2001 and December 14, 2001 by stamp vendor Nandram Rana whose licence had been cancelled on December 11, 2001 for alleged malpractice.
Despite the Stamp Act clearly stating that a stamp paper must be used within six months of it being issued, notary P B Jadia stamped one of the stamp papers on October 10, 2002, nearly 10 months later.
Another notary A K Patel stamped the other stamp paper on September 25, 2002. If all this was not enough, one of the affidavits (number 9266) did not carry signatures of witnesses.
Patel filed the affidavits after Mukesh Rohra, who had rented the shop ''Runners'' at Alkapuri, asked for a stay from the small cause court against his landlord demanded he vacate the shop. Since the landlord had not given a notice to Rohra for vacating the premise, the court had ordered a status quo and asked court commissioners to do a panchnama of the shop.
According to Rohra''s plea, he got the shop on lease on October 10, 2002 in which he started an electronic goods and gifts shop. But, landlord Maheshkumar Nihalani, "with intentions of grabbing the property along with the goods in the shop", had asked him to vacate immediately.
Further, it states that when Rohra asked for time to vacate the place, Nihalani refused. Following this, Nihalani had appeared twice before the court but reported no grievance.
However, through Patel, he filed an affidavit stating that they had entered into an agreement to sell off the shop. Another affidavit, stating that since Rohra was "an employee" of the shop he should not enter the premises again, was also filed.
And, the court of Justice R G Parekh promptly ordered that Rohra should not enter into the shop''s premises again. However, when Rohra''s advocate Kailash Jethmalani filed a review petition disclosing the lacunae in the affidavits, the court reviewed its order and asked to maintain the status quo of the shop till disposal of the suite.
Meanwhile, Rohra has filed a complaint with the Vadodara police commissioner Sudhir Sinha, demanding that all the accused be booked under PASA. Rohra has alleged that the accused including Nihalani, Patel and notary P B Jadia had made bogus affidavits with intentions of grabbing his property.
Sinha has referred the case to the Detection of Crime Branch.