The plea in the Delhi High Court — one with a dispute between two groups of homebuyers at its core — cited a 2008 judgment. But quoting ‘paragraph 74’ was the beginning of the end.
The judgment only had 27 paragraphs.
In a first in the Delhi High Court, a petition was withdrawn on Thursday after it was highlighted that “each and every ground is false and fabricated and AI-generated” with “non-existent” case laws cited.
The petition was filed by Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) on Tuesday against several homebuyers. The GWA was challenging orders by a district judge in Karkardooma that had restricted it from filing its written statement while allowing pleas by homebuyers.
The homebuyers, who were the respondent parties, were being represented by senior advocates N Hariharan, Abhijat, Sanjoy Ghose and others.
An eight-page compilation was also furnished to the court, highlighting all the alleged falsification of judicial precedents cited by the GWA in its petition.
The GWA petition cited the judgment in ‘Chitra Narain v DDA, 2008 (87) DLT 276’ case. The homebuyers said, “There is no such judgment or citation or text in any other judgment. This judgment, citation and contents of the paragraph attempted to be quoted in the petition are all false and fabricated’.
The GWA also cited in its petition the 73rd and 74th paragraph of a judgment titled ‘Raj Narain v Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC 850’. The homebuyers pointed out: “Firstly, the said judgment only has 27 paragraphs, so there arises no question of there being a paragraph 73 and 74. Secondly, such a paragraph/content as is being quoted in the petition is entirely fabricated and does not exist.”
Story continues below this ad
Senior advocate Rakesh Tiku, appearing for GWA, subsequently sought the court’s permission to withdraw the petition.
The matter is related to delayed possession of flats in Gurgaon where nearly 1,600 homebuyers, who had booked houses in Greenpolis in 2012, are yet to receive possession of their homes.
Justice Kathpalia, dismissing the petition and declaring the accompanying applications as withdrawn, also recorded, “All senior counsel and counsel appearing for respondents submit that they would take appropriate steps since some of the judicial precedents cited on behalf of petitioner do not even exist and in some of the precedents, the quoted portions do not exist.”
