Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society vs Smt Har Pyari

Court
Delhi High Court

$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC011825632016
+ CS(OS) 381/2016

BADRI BHAGAT JHANDEWALA TEMPLE SOCIETY
.....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv. with
Ms Manisha Agraqwal Narain,
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr.
Varun Maheshwari, Mr. Manan
Soni, Ms. Kavita Bardia and Ms
Suhani Jain, Advs.
versus

SMT HAR PYARI .....Defendant

Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra and
Mr. Swagata Gupta, Advs.
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma,
LR-1(a) in peson.
Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, Adv. for
LR-1(b) along LR-1(b) in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
ORDER (ORAL)

% 12.10.2026


VINOD KUMAR, J.
O.A. 82/2024 (Appeal)
1. This is an Appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter II of the Delhi High
Court (Original Side) Rule, 2018 challenging the order dated
10.04.2024 passed by learned Joint Registrar.
2. The grievance of the LR-1(a) of deceased defendant is that
despite filing an application (i.e. I.A. 5763/2023) seeking supply of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 1 of 11

complete set of paper book with the judgement in CS (OS) 1679/1982
titled as “ Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society v. DDA ”, the
same was not been supplied to him.
3. The Joint Registrar, in the impugned order, referred to an order
dated 05.07.2023, in which it was noted that the plaintiff has supplied
complete paper book to Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma (LR-1(a) of
deceased defendant) i.e. appellant herein and it amounts to complete
compliance of order dated 24.04.2023.
4. It appears that the appellant is aggrieved by the observation of
the Joint Registrar that the submission of Shri Bharat Bhushan is an
afterthought. It is submitted that admittedly the complete copy of
judgment in CS(OS) 1679/1982 titled as “ Badri Bhagat Jhandewala
Temple Society v. DDA ”, was supplied later on, therefore, this
observation is not correct.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff fairly submits that a
complete copy of the same was supplied later on.
6. In view of this submissions, the observation made by the Joint
Registrar in order dated 05.07.2023 that “submissions of Mr. Bharat
Bhushan Sharma seems to be a result of an afterthought” is hereby
removed. As the appellant has finally received the complete set, albeit
later on, nothing survives in the appeal.
7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
I.A. 41702/2024 (Directions to record the proceedings)
8. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of the
deceased defendant seeking recording of the proceedings on
09.10.2024 in the present case.
9. It is submitted by the applicant that this application has become
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 2 of 11

infructuous, as the said date has passed long back.
10. Accordingly, the application is dismisses being infructuous.
I.A. 42565/2024
11. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of the
deceased defendant under Section 151 of CPC read with online e-
filing Rule 10.1 and 10.4 under Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act,
1966 praying to bring on record the original affidavit filed by the
plaintiff in IA no. 16166/2021.
12. Let the same be filed.
13. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
I.A. 31064/2025 (Directions to record the proceedings)
14. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of the
deceased defendant under Section 151 of CPC read with Rule 7.1 and
7.3 of the Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules
of the High Court of Delhi, 2022 seeking directions for preservation
and recording of the proceedings in the present case.
15. It is submitted by applicant that the plaintiff’s Counsel is
habitual in making false submissions and has filed a defamation suit
seeking damages of Rs.1 crore against him, bearing CS DJ 61/2025
titled as “ Alok Kumar v. Bharat Bhushan Sharma ” . Therefore, it is
submitted that all the proceedings of this case should be recorded so
that applicant can save himself from false prosecution.
16. I am of the opinion that this is not a sufficient ground to direct
recording of the proceedings.
17. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
I.A. 31833/2025 (Delay in filing)
18. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 3 of 11

deceased defendant under Section 151 of CPC seeking condonation of
delay of 229 days in filing the contempt petition (i.e. CCP(O)
131/2025).
19. For the reason stated in application, the delay of 229 days in
filing the contempt petition is condoned.
20. Accordingly, the application is allowed.


CCP(O) 131/2025 (for initiation of contempt proceedings)
21. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of the
deceased defendant under Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 seeking initiation of contempt
proceedings for violating order dated 23.04.2024.
22. Applicant submits that vide order 23.04.2024, this court
permitted the plaintiff to place on record the pleadings of Suit No.
636/1982.
23. It is submitted that this Court has specifically directed the
plaintiff to file certified copies of the same in accordance with law.
However, the certified copies have not been filed by the plaintiff and
therefore, it is violation of the order dated 23.04.2024.
24. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff
submits that he has tried his best to get certified copies of pleadings of
the suit. But, despite making efforts, the suit file could not be traced in
Record Room.
25. It is contended that the non-filing of the certified copies was
neither deliberate nor wilful.
26. Heard the submissions and perused the material on record.
27. I am of the opinion that the provision of Contempt of Court
cannot be pressed, the plaintiff has not filed certified copies of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 4 of 11

proceedings. However, the natural circumstances on account of non
filing of the same as per law will be prevail.
28. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.
I.A. 38256/2024 (Framing of Additional Issues)
29. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of

deceased defendant under Order X1V Rule 5 read with Section 151 of
CPC praying for framing of additional issues.
30. It is submitted by applicant that some additional issues need to
be framed, which are reproduced as under:
“i. Whether the present suit is maintainable further
amounts to be dismissed as the plaintiff has given false
testimony before the Hon’ble High Court to which a
Cr.M.A 7809/2023 u/s 340 CrPC is also pending against
him and to which the plaintiff has also accepted in his
reply that he has falsely testified.
ii. Whether the present suit is maintainable further
amounts to be dismissed as a Crl. M.A. No 1259/2024
under Section 340 CrPC is also pending against the
Plaintiff wherein the Plaintiff has filed a
forged/concealed/fabricated Judgment titled as “BBJTS
Vs. DDA” CS (OS) 1679/1982 causing hindrance in the
administration of justice.
iii. Whether the present suit is maintainable further
amounts to be dismissed as the present suit is barred by
the rule/law of Estoppel, in light of the decision dated
09/06/1960 in the suit bearing civil suit no. 169/1960 filed
by the plaintiff itself, titled as “Badri Bhagat Jhandewala
Temple Society Vs Gokal Chand”.
iv. Whether the present suit is maintainable further
amounts to be dismissed as the Plaintiff is deliberately
with a malice intention filing false and concocted cases in
order to illegally occupy/grab the property of the
Defendants.
v. Whether the present suit is maintainable further
amounts to be dismissed as the Plaintiff is habitual in
filing false and concocted cases against other financially
weaker residents who are residing in the same vicinity at
khasra no. 40 since inception and intentionally harassing
them by involving them in an unnecessary litigation also
having ill-motive to grab the property of these financially
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 5 of 11

weaker residents and the similar pattern is also adapted
by the plaintiff in the present case.”

31. Heard the submissions and perused the material on record.
32. I would take up the proposed additional issues one by one.
33. First, regarding proposed issue no.i, it is clarified that

maintainability of the suit is not dependent upon false testimony of the
plaintiff. However, if the false testimony has been given by the
plaintiff, effect of the same would be consider at the final stage. No
separate issue is, therefore, required to be framed as proposed.
34. Second, proposed issue no.ii is that the plaintiff had filed a
forged/concealed/fabricated Judgment titled as “ Badri Bhagat
Jhandewala Temple Society v. DDA ” in CS (OS) 1679/1982 causing
hindrance in the administration of justice.
35. I am of the opinion that since the correct certified copy had
already been filed on record, no separate issue is warranted on this
point.
36. Third, proposed issue no.iii is that as to whether the present
should be dismissed being barred by the rule/law of Estoppel, in light
of the decision dated 09.06.1960 in the suit bearing
civil suit no.
169/1960 titled as “ Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society Vs
Gokal Chand ”.
37. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that vide order
dated 23.04.2024, an additional issue (b) regarding the same had been
framed, which is reproduced as under :
“b) Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata, in
light of the decision dated 09.06.1960 in the Suit bearing
Civil Suit No. 169/1960 filed by the Plaintiff itself, titled as
"Badri Bhagat Jhandewalan Temple Society v/s Gokal
Chand"? OPD”

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 6 of 11

38. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff contended that this
issue covers the effect of the judgment dated 09.06.1960. The
applicant, however, submits that the existing issue concerns res
judicata and does not expressly include the plea of estoppel.
39. I am of the opinion that the principle of res judicata in a way is

an example of ‘ estoppel by record ’, I may refer to Seth Ghasiram
Seth Dalchand Palliwal v. Mt. Kundanbai, w/o Rameshwar Shuhul,
and others, AIR 1940 Nag 163 as well as in Govindji Jevat and Co.
v. Shree Saraswati Mills Ltd., AIR 1982 Bom 76 . Thus, the issue of
estoppels is already included in additional issue (b) on res judicata .
Hence, there is no need to frame a separate issue of estoppel.
40. The applicant does not press proposed issue no. (iv) and (v).
41. The application is disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 8874/2024 (Exemption)
42. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of
deceased defendant under Section 482 Crpc seeking exemption from
filing the certified copies of annexure A1 to A6 in CRL.M.A.
11785/2024.
43. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

44. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 9295/2024 (Exemption)
45. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of
deceased defendant under Section 482 Crpc seeking exemption from
filing the certified copies of annexure A1 to A6 in CRL.M.A.
12598/2024.
46. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
47. The application is disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 7 of 11

I.A. 41054/2024 (Exemption)
48. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of
deceased defendant under Section 528 Crpc seeking exemption from
filing the certified copies of Document A1 to A3 in CRL.M.A.

29589/2024.
49. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

50. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 9664/2025 (Exemption)
51. This is an application filed by Legal Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of
deceased defendant under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from
filing the certified, original/clear translated copies and document of
annexure A1 to A3 in CRL.M.A. 11369/2025.
52. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
53. The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 11785/2024, CRL.M.A. 12598/2024, CRL.M.A.
29589/2024 & CRL.M.A. 11369/2025 (Initiate Criminal
Proceedings Against The Counsel Of The Plaintiff)

54. These applications filed on same allegations are filed by Legal

Heir i.e. LR-1(a) of deceased defendant under Section 340 of of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the corresponding provision
under 379 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
initiation of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and his Counsel
in relation to the judgment filed in CS(OS) 1679/1982 , titled as
“ Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society v. DDA ”.
55. It is submitted by the applicant that a defective, partially printed
and incomplete copy of the said judgment was filed, which is also
noticed by the Court and therefore, the Court had directed the plaintiff
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 8 of 11

to file complete certified copy of the judgment, which was
subsequently supplied to the applicant.
56. The certified copy of the judgement was also filed before this
court. However, this Court vide orders dated 03.09.2024 and again on
15.09.2025, directed the Registry (Original Side) to attach the original
file of titled as “
Civil Suit No. 1679/1982 Badri Bhagat Jhandewala
Temple Society Vs. DDA” with the present case.
57. It is submitted by the applicant that the Registry (Original Side)
has not complied with the orders despite these directions. This court
also notes that despite given repetitive directions, original file of the
said suit has not been attached to the record of the present case.
58. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the plaintiff and his Counsel cannot be held responsible if
the certified copies supplied by the Copying Agency were defective or
incomplete.
59. Heard the submissions and perused the material on record.
60. In application No. 11785/2024, it is prayed that proceedings
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be initiated against the plaintiff for filing a
defective judgment. In application No. 29589/2024, the same prayer
has been made under the new Section 379 BNSS. In application No.
12598/2024 also the same prayer has been made. In application No.
11369/2025, the prayer is to take action against the Counsel for
plaintiff under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the same reason i.e. filing of a
misleading judgment for seeking a final order in IA No. 8259/2024.
61. I am of the opinion that the law is well settled regarding the
initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 Crpc for giving a
false evidence. In Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 9 of 11

Namdeorao Jaipurkar, 2026 INSC 724, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that such proceedings should be initiated in exceptional
circumstances and not merely on account of innocent or immaterial
inaccuracies.
62. In the present case, although an incomplete copy of the

judgment in titled as
CS(OS) 1679/1982 “Badri Bhagat Jhandewala
Temple Society v. DDA” , was initially filed, However, later on a
complete certified copy was subsequently filed and copy of the same
was supplied to the applicant. There is no material on record to show
that the incomplete copy was deliberately filed by learned counsel for
the plaintiff with the intention of misleading the Court. Accordingly,
no ground is made out for initiating criminal proceedings on the basis
of the allegations raised in these applications.
63. I am of the opinion that if the proceedings are initiated against
the lawyers as prayed by the applicant, it would not be possible for the
Counsel to properly represent the case, who do so on instructions of
their parties. Hence, this praying is absolutely unwanted.
64. The applications are, therefore, dismissed.

65. However, the Registry (Original Side) is directed to file a report
explaining as to why the directions contained in the order dated
03.09.2024 and 15.09.2025 for attachment of the original file of Civil
Suit No. 1679/1982 titled as “ Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple
Society Vs. DDA” had not been complied with.
66. These applications are disposed of accordingly.
CS(OS) 381/2016
67. Let the parties appear before the Local Commissioner on
02.11.2026 at 3:00 pm, who shall fix the dates for recording of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 10 of 11

evidence and should complete the evidence within six months.
68. After completion of recording of evidence, the entire record of
evidence be filed before the Joint Registrar on 13.04.2026.


VINOD KUMAR, J
OCTOBER 12, 2026 / dd /Sanskar

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
14:49:18
CS(OS) 381/2016 Page 11 of 11