As per case facts, Appellant No. 1 claimed ownership of Flat Nos. 701 and 702, stating he purchased Flat No. 701 and then divided it. However, Respondent No. 5, a ... government employee, was allotted Flat No. 702 as an alternative due to illegal occupation of his original flat. Orders from the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court found Appellant No. 1 lacked documents for Flat No. 702. Appellant No. 1 challenged these orders in a Writ Petition, alleging fraud and natural justice violations, but the Single Judge disposed of it, advising him to seek remedies elsewhere. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the Single Judge's order. The question arose whether the Single Judge erred in his decision, given Appellant No. 1's claims of ownership, title, and rights, and allegations of procedural impropriety. Finally, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's order, concluding that Appellant No. 1 had no documentary evidence for Flat No. 702 and was using sham methods to dispossess the bonafide owner, Respondent No. 5. The court found Appellant No. 1's claim of dividing Flat No. 701 to be false and dismissed the appeal.