[Sushila Suri]

How can i circulate such material before reveiw petiton/ curative petition is filed so that if the matter is highlited then it might be that the bench cud not ignore the petition completely like already done twice as mentioned above.
Shud i report the matter to Media for injustice by SC.

[Sushila Suri]

On the day the First SLP of dr. Sushil suri was listed for arguments on calling the case advocate Parag tripathi appeared and argued but in minutes the court made an observation that the order pass by High court is correct and SLP be dismissed upon which Sri tripathi requested the court that Dr. A.M. Singhvi is also engaged for the matter and that he shall argue the case post lunch. Case called at 2pm. Dr. Singhvi appeared and argued. the court after listening to both parties ordered( by reading and dictation) to the record incharge….

”that the first injunction suit stay given by consent shall continue and the parties shall be bound by the final outcome of the two suits and also if any construction is made in mean time during the pendency of suit no claim shall be made later by such person making the said construction.”
The high court order of Fafo no 828 of 2015 dtd. 13.8.16 shall not stand in any way of the trial court to decide the case on merits”.
With the above observations and dictation given in SC bench we were staisfied with Justice given.

But the order did not came out in stipulated time and got delayed…

Later after few days when the order sheet of SLP was checked it was found that the date of stay granted ex. Party on 12.2.15 and confirmed on 23.8.15 of trial court for partition suit was mentioned in the order instead of 23.12.13 date of order on which temporary injunction was passed in the first suit for permanent injunction.

It is also relevant here that the trial court orders on date 12.2.15 and 23.8.15 relates to stay of construction in the second suit for partition whereas the first suit for permanent injunction stay was granted on 23.12.13 and not on 23.8.15 which is the date of stay in partition suit which is clearly indicating that the dates mentioned in SC SLP judgement has been delivered with the dates mistake where the date was supposed to be 23.12.13 which was printed as 23.8.15 the order of which date has already been quashed by the HC Fafo no 828/2015.

So now my question is that:-
1. Whether without quashing/ setting aside of the High Court order and also without recording restoration of the order passed by trial court how can both the orders sustain when the later order is an appeal allowed from the first order.
2. Also when the order dtd 23.8.15 for stay on properties restraining constructions is continued how can constructions be raised which the court says in the order that in the mean time if constructions are made it would not be claimed later after final outcome of both the suits on merits.

The judgement passed by J.S. khaher is confusing and contrary to law which needs to be amended and the IA of which later filed by Smt. Sushila Suri also got dismissed by same bench on 17.10.16 saying that the order passed on 16.9.16 is correct and needs no correction.

3. It seemed that the arguments of dr. Singhvi in the court room did not work good on the same day when the judgement was passed and SLP disposed off as above explained but when the order was seen then it was the other way round to the benefit of Dr.Suri. this shows that the connection of a SC judge with Dr. Singhvi matters more than principles of law and justice. As the dismissal of IA on 17.10.16 establishes that the link and connection between dr. Singhvi and the bench which is looking influenced and as strongly biased.

Does Only connections and names of such expensive lawyers in top 10 list do work in supreme court or does any law and order is also looked upon or completely ignored as done in our case.

SENIOR ADVOCATE:- RETD. JUSTICE PRADEEP KANT appearing on behalf of Smt. Sushila Suri was completely ignored by SC and no weightage to the caee was given by SC despite the case being very strong on merits and not considered by.
The court did not even see the cruelness of son litigating against her 85 yrs old real mother against the wish of his father as instructed in his last registered will dtd 11.6.04.

Does the only top 10 named list of SC lawyers can only get justice and any other senior advocate in the lower heirarchy cud be ignored as seen above in our case.

The judicial system seems to be absolutely unreliable and justice to any other advocate/client cud be difficult to be delivered even though when on merits the case was also very strong.

[Sushila Suri]

Comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of seniors citizen parent under susbection 2 of section 22 of parent welfare act 2007 also not considered by SC in the case.

[Author]

Posts