COMPLAINT OF JUSTICE SUDHIR AGRAWAL WRITING FALSELY BY PRMITTING TRESSPASER TO THE PROPERTY OF OLD MAN .

COMPLAINT OF JUSTICE SUDHIR AGRAWAL WRITING FALSELY BY PRMITTING TRESSPASER TO THE PROPERTY OF OLD MAN .

COMPLAINT TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA FOR REFERING THE MATTER FOR INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE IMPROPRIOTY OF  HON'BLE JUSTICE SUDHIR AGRAWAL, SITTING JUDGE O F ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN DEALING WITH HIS DEPLORABLE POWER ASSIGNED TO JUDGE OF HIGH COURT

HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUDHIR AGRAWAL
REFERENCE- JUDGEMENT IN  WRIT PETITION NO.20502 of 1996 in re Smt Rama Dubey Versus VI Additional District Judge, ETAWAH , Which has yet not being placed on internet as you want to HIDE this Judgement in order behave like a Judge having your intention to damage my reputation before my Client namely Sri Shankar Lal Aged about 76 years. Smt.Rama Dubey is a rank trespasser by her own admission as she had stated in her written statement the she is SUB TANANT of Mahendra Dutta at the rate of Rs.  100/ - per month , while the decree passed in respect of the arrears  rent being  realized from Mr.  Mahendra Dutta and thus there was no occasion for inducting a sub tanant by this Hon’ble Court  on the Contention of the petitioner  that she had furnished the security in furtherance of the rent amenable to Mr.  Mahendra Dutta, as the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Court is not to perpetuate the illegality in favour of such lady.

Smt. Rama Dubey is supported by the muscle man and-mafia to grab the property left by tenant Mahendra Dutt during the period just before filing the suit and as such she was made party as trespasser in the property belonging to the land lords and is now pretending herself to be the genuine tenant of the deponent in order to grab the landed property by making an abuse of process of this Hon’ble court.

o    That Smt. Rama Dubey wife of Sri Radha Raman Dubey, has herself accepted in her own written statement (C.A.-1), admitting therein that she remained the sub-tenant of Mahendra Dutt at the enhanced rent of Rs. 100/- per month as observed in judgement dated 31.3.1989  in the premises belonging to the petitioner. She was the teacher in Nehru Vidyalaya, which was running in the premises of the landlord.

I have further said that the present writ petition has been listed on 42 times for arguments and all the time Smt Rama Dubey has sought the adjournment and when the matter was directed to be listed complementarity in the list on priority basis the Counsel for Smt Rama Dubey got the matter adjourned and it was dismissed twice in default  by the Hon'ble Court

YOUR WORKING STYLE OF RESUMING THE DUTY TOWARDS THE COURT IS NOT PROPER AS YOU ALWAYS SIT IN YOUR COURT AFTER 11o CLOCK while the Layer keep on waiting from 10 o clock inside the Court Room. You are the setinel and Guardian of the People and HAVING ANY REFLECTIONS TOWARDS YOUR ABILITY WHEN YOU SAY IN COURT THAT YOU ARE AN EXCEPTIONAL FAR INTELLIGENT THAN ANY OTHER LAWYER OF THIS COURT, THE SENIOR SITTING INSEDE THE COURT TAKE IT SARCASTICALLY.

YOUR JUDGEMENT SHOWN TO ME BY MY CLIENT IS REPRODUCE AS UNDER IN RESPECT OF OFFENDING PORTION, WHICH MY CLIENT SHANKAR LAL SUFFERING FROM HEART AILMENT COULD NOT BEAR.NOW IT APPEARS TO ME FROM YOUR OVER ALL CONDUCT THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN A REVENGE FROM ME>  HE WROTE ME A LETTER WITH DROPS IN HIS EYES AS YOU HAVE PLAYED A FRAUD WITH THE LITIGANT UNDER CONQUERABLE EXERCISE OF POWER AND WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE TO DAMAGE MY CARRIER FOR MERE JEALOUSY IN ORDER TO WRECK THE VENGEANCE AS YOU HAVE TAKEN THE REVENGE OF YOUR DEFEAT IN THE CASES , WHEN YOU APPEARED AS THE COUNSEL OF ELECTRICITY BOARD AND GOT YOUR  ARTIFICIAL VANITY EXPOSED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT . NOW YOU ARE TAKING REVENGE FROM ME. YOUR DEMAND MADE THROUGH YOUR FATHER RUNNING THE BRICK CLIN AT SHIKOHABAD AMOUNTING TO RUPPES 19 LACKS COULD NOT BE FULFILLED IN CASE DHEERPUR MULTI CENTRE CASE VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONS, IN WHICH DESPITE THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED AFTER THREE MONTHS , YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY PRECLUDEC TO MENTION AND TO DEALT WITH MY BASIC ARGUMENT THAT NATURAL JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED BY THE IOC IN ORDER TO WRECK THE VENGEANCE  AS QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE PARLIAMENT REGARDING UNAUITHORISED WITHHOLDING OF RUPEES !, 98, 000/ -AS RTO AMOUNT NT DESPITE THE CRACK ON THE TOTALISER SEAL YOU HAVE MISQUOTED IT AS TEMPERING AND THE INSPECTION TEAM MEANT FOR INSPECTION OF THE TEMPERING IN TOTALISER REAL HAS NOT MADE THE INSPECTION. YOU HAVE PURPOSELY AVOIDED TO DEALT WITH SUCH ARGUMENTS.