1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

I.A. NO. OF 2022, being

AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE

ORDER DATED 22.08.2022, IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 011202 & 011203

OF 2022

[Arising out of the:

1. Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2022 passed

by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in CM(M) No. 537/2019; and the
2. Impugned Order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Single
Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Review Pet. No. 53/2022 qua CM(M) No. 537/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Siddharth Bajaj & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Ravi Kumar Bajaj & Ors. …Respondents

WITH
I.A. NO. OF 2022:
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2022

INDEX
 2
S. Particulars Pages
No
1. I.A. No. _/2022: An Application 768-775
for Modification of the Order dated
22.08.2022, passed in SLP(C) Nos. 011202 &
011203 of 2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, on behalf of the Petitioners
Nos. 1-3
2. I.A. No. /2022: An application 776-778
for exemption from filing certified copy of the
Order dated 22.08.2022, passed in SLP(C)
Nos. 011202 & 011203 of 2022 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on behalf of
the Petitioners Nos. 1-3

3. Affidavit in support 779-780

4. Annexure P/1 781-782

True Copy of the Order dated 22.08.2022,

passed in SLP(C) Nos. 011202 & 011203 of
2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

5. Proof of Service 783-788

6. Filing Index 789-790

 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

I.A. NO. _ OF 2022 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 011202 & 011203

OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Siddharth Bajaj & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Ravi Kumar Bajaj & Ors. …Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE

ORDER DATED 22.08.2022, PASSED IN SLP(C) NOS.
011202 & 011203 OF 2022 BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
NOS. 1-3

To: The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s

Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India,

The Humble Application on behalf of the Petitioners Nos. 1-3,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. The present Application is preferred on behalf of the

Petitioners Nos. 1-3 herein (hereinafter, collectively referred to
as the “Petitioners”) in the above-captioned matter, praying for
modification of the Order dated 22.08.2022 passed therein
 4
(hereinafter, the “said Order”). [A True Copy of the Order dated
22.08.2022 is annexed hereto as Annexure-P/1 @ Pages 781-
782].
2. The contents of the above-captioned Special Leave
Petitions (filed with their Annexures) (hereinafter, collectively
referred to as the “SLPs”) are reiterated without repeating herein,
for the sake of brevity. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and
rely upon the same at the time of hearing of this Application.

3. The present Application is liable to be granted on the

grounds that follow, amongst others. All grounds are taken in the
alternative and without prejudice to one another. This is without
prejudice to the Applicants’ other grounds and contentions in
their present SLPs pending admission.

MAIN APPLICATION:

4. The Petitioners ever pray for admission of their SLPs, and

have not waived any of their grounds, rights, contentions,
concerns, etc. in any manner in these proceedings. So they seek
to clarify the said Order to prevent any possible
ambiguities/inaccuracies. Further, they did not, and do not, waive
any rights, grounds, contentions, etc. as a result of the mala fide
Respondent No. 1 filing an Affidavit, especially (inter alia) after
he has made false claims supported by Affidavits repeatedly, even
in the Hon’ble Courts at Delhi spanning 2009-2021; and refused
on 22.08.2022 even to disclose information on all his prior
mortgage attempts, showing his mala fides. To clarify this and
other stated concerns, the Petitioners most humbly submit that
the said Order may clarify/add information to the effect below:

(a) In its Para 2: An encapsulation of the Petitioners’ key

concerns stated on 22.08.2022, being that: “The Petitioners’
 5
concerns include, inter alia, that the Delhi High Court’s
Impugned Judgment and Orders falsely invoked emergency
powers (under Article 227 of the Constitution of India), to
decree a Suit pending before the Trial Court, by twice not
mentioning/dealing with (i.e., even post-Review) a Delhi High
Court status quo 2014 Stay Order on the Suit property’s title
and possession (after allowing it to be brought on record), to
then falsely claim “imminent danger” and decree the mala
fide Suit with prima facie forgery as with “Lunuyin Baya”
masquerading as ‘Rajiv Bajaj’ before admission/denial; all
while not dealing with (not even mentioning) any of the
dozens of contradictions, concealment, unclean hands, and
over a dozen Supreme Court judicial precedents/case laws on
unclean hands.”
(emphasis added)

As just one example, the SLPs’ Page 149 shows a True Copy
of the “Lunuyin Baya” signature, masquerading as ‘Rajiv
Bajaj’ (vis-à-vis Page 136 supra) [SLP(C) Nos. 11202-
3/2022’s Annexure P/9 @ Pages 149 vs SLP(C) Nos. 11202-
3/2022’s Annexure P/9 @ Pages 136]. For eight years, the
Respondent No.1/Plaintiff avoided admission/denial and
forensic examination thereof, and now claims his Suit as
decreed while the Petitioners’ three separate Applications for
Additional Documents, etc., are pending at Trial.

(b) In its Para 3: A clarification that: “The Respondent No.

1’s Affidavit does not negate any of the Petitioners’ stated
rights, contentions, and/or concerns qua the Impugned Final
Judgment and Orders; qua unauthorised ‘mortgage’-backed
loans received based on prima facie forged Affidavits signed
 6
‘Lunuyin Baya’ instead of ‘Rajiv Bajaj’; and qua filing of
materially and patently false statements supported by
Affidavits to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble
Patiala House Courts variously in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, 2019, 2021, etc.”
(emphasis added)

This is partly because, as already stated in oral and written

submissions, the Respondent No. 1 has already repeatedly made
false averments. This despite signing attested Affidavits
supporting his submissions in the Hon’ble Delhi High Courts
and the Hon’ble Patiala House Courts, as pointed out in five
escalating/sequential rounds of litigation. So any Affidavit by
him cannot reassure the Petitioners. Nor did his legal team’s
vehement refusal on 22.08.2022 to disclose all prior mortgage-
related information involving him and the Suit property – from
which an adverse inference is also liable to be drawn – reassure
the Petitioners. He has admitted in averments to receiving funds
against a prima facie forged Affidavit creating an illegal,
fictitious ‘mortgage’, and the Petitioners have dealt with being
threatened with ludicrous warnings of foreclosure/forced sale
when his cheque bounced – the SLPs’ Page 64 [SLP(C) Nos.
11202-3/2022’s Page 64].

(c) In its Para 2: A mention of the repeated submissions on

22.08.2022, that: “The Petitioners’ repeated reliance on inter
alia, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others,
(2008) 12 SCC 481, [Paras 15, 16, & 24], regarding the
fraudulently obtained Impugned Judgment/Decree and
Orders
– especially under the Extraordinary Appellate Jurisdiction
[whereas “One who seeks equity, must do equity”] on a
 7
patently false emergency during an ongoing status quo Stay
Order – is a nullity, non est in the eyes of law, following this
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s well-settled dicta.”
(emphasis added)

(d) In its Para 2: A mention of the Petitioners’ contention of

“the Suit being collusive and Respondent No. 2 having been
deliberately falsely impleaded.” The SLPs’ Page 136 vs its
Page 225 shows this most succinctly [SLP(C) Nos. 11202-
3/2022’s Annexure P/6 @ Pages 136 contrasted with SLP(C)
Nos. 11202-3/2022’s Annexure P/29 @ Pages 225]. This is
stated herein as even after repeated submissions and
explanations that the Respondent No. 2 was falsely impleaded
in a collusive Suit and never had a share, as the hearing was
about to end, the Respondent No. 1’s side still repeated their
false claims, and the Petitioners were unable to rebut each of
the false claims due to time constraints at that hearing.

(e) In its Para 2: the said Order does not record that this
Hon’ble Court had orally dictated and instructed words to the
effect that the Affidavit should also contain undertakings
regarding the Petitioners’ and the Respondent No. 1’s pre-
established mutual positions/understanding/agreement on what
would hypothetically be the plot’s post-freehold east-west
partitioning [to the Respondent No. 1 the eastern half]).

5. In its Para 3: The Petitioners emailed prior parties to the

litigation soon after their SLPs were filed. But they did not serve
advance copies thereof or advance notice of the hearing, as no
caveat was ever filed. So the Respondent No. 1’s legal team has
appeared without any caveat, and without advance notice of the
hearing from the Petitioners. To clarify this, the said Order’s Para
 8
3 may kindly state that their side appears “… without advance
notice of hearing from Petitioners”.
(emphasis added)

6. Lastly, the Petitioners were given little time to rebut

following the Respondent No. 1’s side’s very numerous false
submissions, and so this should not be taken or misconstrued as
passivity or silent assent to unclean hands/perjury (qua the
aforesaid false submissions), failure to rebut material omissions,
etc. For instance, the Hon’ble Court heard about the Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) fine challenged from the
Petitioners, but the Respondent No. 1’s side was asked the reason
therefor and gave none, minimising it; just prior to the next
case/litigant being heard.

7. And for the sake of full disclosure of relevant omissions:

(a) The Hon’ble Court’s directions as described in Para 5(e)

above on plot’s post-freehold east-west partitioning [to the
Respondent No. 1 the eastern half] were dictated after the
Petitioner No. 1 mentioned the Respondent No. 1’s repeated
written requests and Suit Prayers (to persons; the lessor;
multiple Courts) for east-west partition [to the Respondent No.
1 the eastern half] variously in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2013, etc.,
while explaining why the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had
suggested appointing a Senior Mediator; and on the topic of
misuse of the aforesaid forged (“Lunuyin Baya”-
masquerading-as-“Rajiv Bajaj”–)Affidavit.

(b) The reason the Petitioners had costs imposed was that their
grounds for Review included that the Hon’ble Court had not
mentioned and dealt with the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff’s
unclean hands; with the Petitioners’ Rejoinder (despite it being
 9
taken on record), nor 16 additional legal grounds taken under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC, repeatedly given in writing and orally
(none ever waived); and had used unwritten, withheld reasoning
to ignore and to rule in violation of 26 binding judicial
precedents after listing them by name in the Order, including 19
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (just 8 words total were given
therefor: “not applicable in the facts of the case”). As after 4
levels of litigation (Application-Review-Petition-Review), this
has been repeatedly endorsed and enlarged, even by the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court – by its first admitting the matter, allowing
filing of judicial precedents, then later dealing with 0 (zero) of
65 (sixty- five) distinct judicial precedents and merely
mentioning half the dicta (excluding the unclean hands–related
portion) of a single precedent pertaining to a Prayer withdrawn
by the Respondent No. 1 at hearing, then saying it need not be
gone into as the Prayer stands withdrawn; plus using a
precedent given by the other side without then mentioning or
dealing with 24 distinct legal arguments against it specifically
advanced in writing and reiterated orally by the Petitioners –
this has now become a far more binding opinion and legitimised
procedure in 2022 than initially in 2018. If left untested via
these SLPs (now the fifth level of judicial consideration), this
may likely be declared un- Constitutional some other day, per
Articles 141 and 144 thereof (as already set out with a related
judicial precedent in the grounds and questions of law in the
Petitioners’ connected SLPs).

As the next hearing is on 05.09.2022, the Petitioners will be

able to formally restate the same orally under SLP(C) Nos.
11196- 11197.
8. This Application is being filed bona fide and in the
interests of justice.
775
 776
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

I.A. NO. _ OF 2022

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 011202 & 011203

OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Siddharth Bajaj & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Ravi Kumar Bajaj & Ors. …Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2022,
PASSED IN SLP(C) NOS. 011202 & 011203 OF 2022 BY
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS NOS. 1-3

To: The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s

Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India,

The Humble Application of the Petitioner No. 1,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. An accompanying Application has been preferred for

Modification of the Order dated 22.08.2022, passed in
SLP(C) Nos. 011202 & 011203 of 2022 by this Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, on behalf of the Petitioners Nos.
1-3 herein
 777
(hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “Petitioners”). The
contents of all these matters are reiterated without repeating
herein for the sake of brevity.

2. The Petitioners have annexed a pdf copy of the said Order

dated 22.08.2022, downloaded from this Hon’ble Court’s
website.

3. That in view of the urgency, and of the risk of exposure to the

coronavirus (a risk that physically applying and returning for
certified copies would necessarily entail), the Applicants seek
exemption from filing the originals and/or certified copies of
the aforesaid Annexure.

4. The Applicants further undertake to produce the certified

copy thereof, if, as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court.

5. This Application is being filed bona fide and in the interests

of justice.

PRAYER

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may:

(a) Exempt the Petitioners from filing a certified copy of the

Order dated 22.08.2022, passed in SLP(C) Nos. 011202 &
011203 of 2022 by this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India;
and/or

(b) Pass any such order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound

shall ever pray.

Drawn & Filed by:

778
780
Annexure P/1 781
782
 783
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA)
I.A. NOS. & OF 2022 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 011202 & 011203

OF 2022

[Arising out of the:

1. Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2022 passed

by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in CM(M) No. 537/2019; and the
2. Impugned Order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Single
Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Review Pet. No. 53/2022 qua CM(M) No. 537/2019]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Siddharth Bajaj & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Ravi Kumar Bajaj & Ors. …Respondents

PROOF OF SERVICE

Only the Respondent No. 1 is a contesting respondent.

Notice has not been issued to any parties – only the Respondent
No. 1 was represented at the hearing and has thus been served a
copy of these accompanying Applications.

Parties served: 1 (screenshots at end of list)

 784
Parties filing this Application: 3 Total Parties: 6

1. Petitioner No. 1: Siddharth Bajaj

S/o of Late Shri Rajiv Bajaj
R/o 1, Golf Links,
New Delhi – 110003
siddharth_bajaj@yahoo.com
9811332165, 9899179420

2. Petitioner No. 2: Natasha Bajaj

D/o of Late Shri Rajiv Bajaj
R/o 1, Golf Links,
New Delhi – 110003
natbajaj3@yahoo.com
9811332165

3. Petitioner No. 3: Gayatri Bajaj

W/o of Late Shri Rajiv
Bajaj R/o 1, Golf Links,
New Delhi – 110003
gayatribajaj3@yahoo.com
9811332165

Versus

4. Respondent No. 1: Ravi Kumar Bajaj

S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal
Bajaj R/o 1, Golf Links,
New Delhi – 110003
rbajaj1941@gmail.com
 785
9811321155
through
Siddharth Yadav, advocate
sid.yadav@csy.co.in
and
Wasim Ashraf, advocate
wasim.ashraf@csy.co.in
secretary@ynwlegal.com
342, Lawyers’ Chambers,
High Court of Delhi,
Sher Shah Suri Marg,
New Delhi – 110003
9910681789

5. Respondent No. 2: Ashok Bajaj

s/o Late Shri Jagdish Lal
Bajaj r/o B-18, Maharani
Bagh, New Delhi – 110065
abajaj99@gmail.com
9911260262
9910152299

6. Respondent No. 3: Director,

Land and Development Office,
Ministry of Urban
Development, Union of India,
Gate No. 4, A Wing, 6th Floor,
Mulana Azad Road,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110011
786
787
788
 789
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA)
I.A. NOS. & OF 2022 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 011202 & 011203

OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Siddharth Bajaj & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Ravi Kumar Bajaj & Ors. …Respondents

FILING INDEX

S. Particulars of Documents Copies Court Fees

No Filed Paid (Rs.)
1. In 2 SLPs – Application for e-filed, 1+3 2*120/- =
Modification of Order, Pages 240/-
766-772
2. In 2 SLPs – Application for e-filed, 1+3 2*100/- =
exemption from filing 200/-
certified copy, Pages 773-775
3. Total pages (incl. index) 23+2, efiled 75/-
4. -
5.
6. Total 515/-
; Paid 540/-
790