AO/276/2008 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 276 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9806 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 276 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9820 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER-STAMP NUMBER No. 275 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 9978 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER-STAMP NUMBER No. 275 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MINADEVI GOVINDLAL PRAJAPATI - Appellant(s) Versus UJAMSINH GANGARAM PUJARA & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HR PRAJAPATI for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,3 - 4. MR HM PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 28/08/2008 AO/276/2008 2/7 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present Appeal from Order is filed by the appellant-original plaintiff Civil Suit No. 2126 of 2007 quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Notice of Motion ( Exhs. 6 & 7) in Civil Suit No. 2126 of 2007, by which learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court has not only rejected the Notice Motion but passed the following order: This application is rejected. The plaintiff Meenaben G. Prajapati is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to each of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, as special cost of this baseless interim application, within 30 days from today. Non-compliance will result in dismissal of the suit. The Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to lodge criminal compliant before the police station/ Court concerned against the plaintiff Meenaben and her two sisters: Naynaben and Varshaben, for the offence punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, AO/276/2008 3/7 JUDGMENT 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code for false declaration on oath by submitting affidavits in this judicial proceedings. The Registrar, for drafting the complaint, is empowered to inspect the record of this suit and obtain copies thereof and also permitted, if he so desires, to take help of the learned Government Pleader for proper drafting of the complaint. The Registrar is directed to submit his report in this regard within 30n days from today. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar of this Court as well as the Government Pleader immediately. Shri H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court was not justified in passing the order directing to lodge criminal compliant before the Police Station / Court concerned against the plaintiff Meenaben and her two sisters : Naynaben and Varshaben for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, it is requested AO/276/2008 4/7 JUDGMENT to quash and set aside the direction. It is further submitted that if such a direction is quashed at this stage, with respect to filing / lodging the criminal complaint is differed at this stage till final disposal of the suit, the appellant will be satisfied. 2. Having heard Shri H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant / appellant and Shri Shah and Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the respective respondents, considering the impugned order and the controversy, it appears to the Court that there is substance in the submission made by learned advocate Shri H.R. Prajapati, for the applicant/ appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, with respect to filing criminal complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, it is required to be differed till the final disposal of the suit. If ultimately, on appreciation of evidence at the time of deciding the suit, if it is found that the persons who have submitted false affidavits / declaration in the judicial proceedings an appropriate criminal complaint be filed against such AO/276/2008 5/7 JUDGMENT persons, therefore, it appears that such directions at this stage to lodge the criminal complaint is not warranted. Learned advocates for the respective respondents have also submitted the said question can be differed and the question with respect to filing the criminal complaint and the liberty can be reserved to initiate appropriate proceedings / criminal complaint by the learned trial Court at the time of disposing of the suit and on appreciation of evidence. 3. So far as rejecting the Notice of Motion (Exhs. 6/7) on merits, considering the impugned order and the reasoning given by the learned Chamber Judge and same dose not warrant any interference of this Court. Even, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/ applicant has also not pressed for quashing and the setting aside the impugned order and has mainly pressed for quashing and setting aside that part of the direction issued by the learned Chamber Judge with respect to lodging criminal complaint against the appellant/ applicant. 4. For the reasons stated above, Appeal from Order succeed in part and the direction issued by the AO/276/2008 6/7 JUDGMENT learned Chamber Judge while dismissing the Notice of Motion vide order dated 22.7.2007 in Civil Suit No. 2126 of 2007 to lodge the criminal complaint before the Police Station/ Court concerned against the plaintiffs Meenaben and her two sisters: Naynaben and Varshaben for the offence punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code for false declaration on oath by submitting affidavits in this judicial proceedings is quashed and set aside at this stage and the same is differed till final disposal of the suit, reserving the liberty by the learned trial Court and passing appropriate order / direction for lodging criminal complaint before the Police Station/ Court concerned against the against the plaintiffs Meenaben and her two sisters: Naynaben and Varshaben for the offence punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code for false declaration on oath by submitting affidavits in this judicial proceedings at the time of final disposal of the suit and if on appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court is satisfied that false declaration on oath have been submitted by the AO/276/2008 7/7 JUDGMENT aforesaid persons and at that stage appropriate declaration can be issued. Rest of the order passed by the leaned City Civil Court passed below Notice of Motion (Exh. 6 & 7) inclusive of the direction directing the plaintiff Meenaben G. Prajapti to pay Rs. 2000/- to each of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby confirmed and time to pay the said cost is extended upto 10.9.2008. Appeal from Order is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 5. In view of the order passed in Appeal from Order, no order is required to be passed in Civil Application No. 9820 of 2008 in Appeal from Order No. 275 of 2008 and Civil Application ST. No. 9978 of 2008. Under the circumstances, Civil Application No. 97820 of 2008, Appeal from Order No. 275 of 2008 and Civil Application ST. No. 9978 of 2008 are to be treated to have been disposed of. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order no further order in C.A. 9806 of 2008. (M.R. Shah,J.) Kaushik