Karnataka High Court
Sri A.S.Gupta vs Sri J.Balraj Babu on 23 January, 2014
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
RFA.CROB.27/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
RFA.CROB.No.27 /2011
IN R.F.A.No.2406/2007
BETWEEN:
Sri A.S.Gupta
S/o late Sri S.L.Talwaria
Aged about 73 years
Occ: Advocate & Notary Public
R/at No.36 & 38, (New No.29)
3rd B Cross, Lal Bhahadur Nagar,
B.Channasandra, Ward No.84,
Bangalore-43. ... CROSS OBJECTOR
(By Sri A.S.Gupta - Party-in-person)
AND:
1. Sri J.Balraj Babu
S/o late Sri S.Joseph Raj
Aged about 50 years
Occ: Proprietor
J.Babu Auto Electricals,
No.84, Residency Road,
Bangalore-25.
r/at No.611, 2nd A Cross,
2nd Block, H.R.B.R.Layout,
Banaswadi, Bangalore-43.
2. Smt.Nagarathnamma
W/o late K.Rajshekhara
Aged about 63 years
Occ: Household,
r/at Premises No.84,
RFA.CROB.27/2011
2
Residency Road (Field Marshal Kariappa Road)
Civil Station,
Bangalore-25.
3. Kumari R.N.Mani
Aged abut 38 years
D/o late K.Rajshekhara
r/at Premises No.84,
Residency Road (Field Marshal Kariappa Road)
Civil Station, Bangalore-25.
4. Sri R.Shivakumar,
S/o late K.Rajshekhara
Aged about 32 years
r/at Premises No.84,
Residency Road (Field Marshal Kariappa Road)
Civil Station, Bangalore-25.
5. Kumari Shashikala Shilpa
S/o late K.Rajshekhara
Aged about 31 years
r/at Premises No.84,
Residency Road (Field Marshal Kariappa Road)
Civil Station, Bangalore-25.
6. M/s. East End Garage
Rep. by its Proprietor
Sri Carlton New Castle,
S/o Sri New Castle,
Aged about 53 years
By his GPA holder Sri Varnam
S/o E.New Castle,
No.84, Residency Road
Bangalore-25. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri B.A.Krishna, Jayanth Pattana Shetty, Assts. for R1 (Noc),
Vide order dt.13.4.12 - service of notice to R2 - 6 - dispensed
with)
This RFA.CROB. is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC.,
against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 passed in
O.S.10964/1994 on the file of the XXVIII Addl.City Civil Judge,
RFA.CROB.27/2011
3
Mayo Hall, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for permanent
injunction.
This RFA.CROB. coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This cross objection is filed in R.F.A.No.2406/2007. The cross-objector was defendant No.5 in O.S.No.10964/1994. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiff - 1st respondent Sri J.Balraj Babu seeking a declaration that he was a tenant of the suit schedule premises under late K.Rajashekara and thereafter, continued as such under defendants 1 to 4 i.e. wife and children of late K.Rajashekara. He also sought for a decree of permanent injunction.
2. The plaintiff - 1st respondent claimed that he was the Proprietor of J.Babu Auto Electricals carrying on the business of electrical repairs of four wheelers and allied business in a portion of the premises. The suit schedule premises, according to him, formed part of the premises bearing No.84, Residency Road, Bangalore - 25. It was described in the plaint schedule as premises consisting of a shed with asbestor sheet roofing RFA.CROB.27/2011 4 supported by stone pillars with a small room therein and an open space in front of the shed to the entrance gate, totally measuring 78' North to South and 38' East to West and 19' at the edge of the open space. The eastern boundary of this premises was described as premises in occupation of East End Garage of defendant No.6 (six) and open space in front of defendant No.5's (five's) Divya Shopping Centre measuring east to west 32' and beyond that rear side wall - residential portion belonging to defendants 1 and 4 (one and four) towards south and the premises in occupation of defendant No.5 (five) and also Prathiba Printers and Publisher's Office. The western boundary is described as compound wall and beyond that Brigade Road and the southern boundary as compound wall and beyond that Magarath Road and the northern boundary as 17' (seventeen) width passage for ingress and egress to the tenements in occupation of the plaintiff, defendants 5 and 6 (five and six) and Prathiba Printers and Publisher's Office.
3. According to the plaintiff, Sri K.Rajashekar was the owner of the suit schedule property. He died on 02.12.1990. Defendants 1 to 4 being his legal heirs have succeeded to the same. He asserted that the suit schedule premises was taken RFA.CROB.27/2011 5 on lease by his father Sri S.Joseph Raj in the year 1978 on a monthly rental of Rs.100/- which was later on enhanced from time to time and at the time of the suit the rate of rent agreed and payable was Rs.200/- per month. The tenancy was a monthly tenancy. The father of the plaintiff was doing mechanical as well as electrical repair work of four wheelers and the plaintiff was doing the same business along with his father and as his father had become old, the plaintiff continued the said business in the premises. During the lifetime of Rajashekar, rents were paid to him. After his demise, the rental of the premises was paid to defendant No.1 -
Smt.Nagarathnamma, wife of late Rajashekar. But, the landlord did not issue any rent receipts. As the landlord failed to issue rent receipts and refused to receive the rents by Money Order, plaintiff was constrained to file an application under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in H.R.C.No.10230/1994 before the Small Causes Court, Bangalore, seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent for three months with a further permission to continue to deposit the monthly rent falling due periodically.
RFA.CROB.27/20116
4. Plaintiff further specifically stated that defendant No.5 - Cross Objector herein was the tenant of a portion of the premises bearing No.84 and so also defendant No.6 as indicated in the hand sketch appended to the plaint. He further asserted in paragraph 4 of the plaint that defendant No.5 had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property described in the hand sketch appended to the plaint shown by letters ABCD. He urged that except exercising the right of way to pass through the gate, in order to have ingress and egress to their respective premises, defendants 5 & 6 had no right over the suit schedule premises of which the plaintiff was the tenant. Allegations were made against defendant 1 to 4 of unlawful interference in the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff in collusion with defendants 5 & 6, particularly in the matter of carrying on the business in the suit schedule premises by the plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff had admittedly filed a suit in O.S.No.11115/1993 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.5, who was an advocate by profession and after coming to know about the filing of the said suit, defendant No.5 approached the plaintiff and held out a promise that he will not obstruct or interfere with the plaintiff's possession of RFA.CROB.27/2011 7 the suit schedule open space. Therefore, the said suit was withdrawn. Accordingly, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.07.1994. However, contrary to the promise made by defendant No.5, he again started interfering with the plaintiff's possession and hence, he was constrained to file the present suit. Allegations were made against defendant No.5 stating that he was attempting to bring his sales in the suit schedule open space so as to display the readymade garments in the said open space, thereby obstructing the plaintiff and the plaintiff's customers to park their vehicles for repairs in the open space. It was further alleged that although defendant No.5 had absolutely no right, title or interest, either in the suit schedule premises or in the suit schedule open space, nevertheless holding out that he was an Advocate by profession and can do anything he wanted, he exploited the situation.
6. It was also alleged that at the behest of defendant No.5, defendant No.6 was obstructing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In paragraph 11 of the plaint, he alleged that defendant No.5 being an advocate by profession, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was in need of a ration card and for that purpose an affidavit was required, RFA.CROB.27/2011 8 obtained the signature of the plaintiff on blank papers telling that there was no need for him to go to the Court for the said purpose and believing the words of defendant No.5, he put his signature on the blank papers and the 5th defendant with ulterior motive made use of those blank papers and got filed a statement in suit O.S.No.10001/1990 filed by the 6th defendant against the 5th defendant seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the front portion of the property bearing No.84 which included the suit schedule premises, both the construction portion and the open space. It was alleged that the affidavit got prepared on the blank paper by the 5th defendant which had been signed by the plaintiff was made use of by forging the same attributing certain statements to the plaintiff.
7. It is necessary to notice here that in the affidavit, the plaintiff has stated that he was carrying on the business of auto electrical repair work of four wheeler in a portion of the premises bearing No.84, Residency Road, Bangalore - 25, since 1978. The said place where he was carrying on business was in actual possession and enjoyment of defendant therein (defendant No.5 herein) and that he was permitted to carry on RFA.CROB.27/2011 9 the business and share the business proceeds with the defendant. It is also stated that the open compound was exclusively used by the defendant himself (defendant No.5 herein) and the customers of the defendants were parking their cars and that the plaintiff therein (defendant No.6 herein) was not a tenant either under defendant No.5 or under Rajashekar and that they were doing business only on the permission granted by defendant No.5 under the partnership terms. It is also relevant to notice here that O.S.No.10001/1990 was later dismissed.
8. Plaintiff has also asserted that defendant 1 to 4 had instituted eviction proceedings against defendant No.5 in H.R.C.No.10387/1991 which was pending before the Small Causes Court, Bangalore and the plaintiff was not made a party to the same. Therefore, apprehending that defendants 1 to 4 by obtaining eviction order against defendant No.5 would evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule premises without recourse to law and as the plaintiff had independent title as a tenant in respect of the suit premises, he was constrained to file the suit. RFA.CROB.27/2011 10
9. Cross-Objector - defendant No.5 herein filed his written statement contending that the suit instituted by the plaintiff was fraudulent by falsely claiming that he was the Proprietor of J.Babu Electricals carrying on the business of electrical repairs in the suit schedule premises as no such business was carried on in the portion of the property bearing No.84, Residency Road, Bangalore. The schedule and the hand sketch produced were denied as forged documents. The assertion of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff took the premises on lease in 1978 from late K.Rajashekar for monthly rent of Rs.100/- was specifically denied. He urged that the plaintiff failed to secure any exparte temporary injunction in O.S.No.11115/1993 as he failed to produced any lease deed to show his tenancy over the land. He further contended after receiving summons from the Court, he appeared in the said suit. However, the plaintiff surreptitiously got O.S.No.11115/1993 filed against him withdrawn. The allegations made in the plaint with regard to the alleged handing over of blank signed paper by the plaintiff to defendant No.5 were denied as fraudulent concoction, characterizing it as defamatory and urging that as the plaintiff was liable for defamation, he may be reserved right to sue the plaintiff before appropriate Criminal Court. RFA.CROB.27/2011 11
10. Defendant No.5 further contended in page No.17 of the written statement that the plaintiff had come up with absolutely fraudulent statement that he was obstructed by defendants 1 to 4 to use the suit schedule open space on 13.08.1994. He further urged that the plaintiff has concocted such a statement willfully and intentionally knowing fully well that the entire open space being used for the purpose of displaying readymade garments and the same has been occupied by several large tables numbering about 15. Therefore, question of interference by defendant No.5 along with defendants 1 to 4 did not arise. In paragraph 14, defendant No.5 further urged that the plaintiff has filed a similar suit in O.S.No.11115/1993 against defendant No.5. The relief claimed in the present suit against defendant No.5 was the same as the relief claimed in the earlier suit. He urged that the plaintiff was liable for perjury for swearing falsely in that regard. He also explained how he came in possession of the front portion of property No.84, Residency Road, Bangalore, as partner of late K.Rajashekar by contributing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- during the year 1970 for the business run under an agreement which was subsequently entered into in the year 1974 between late K.Rajashekar and RFA.CROB.27/2011 12 defendant No.5. He urged that as per the said agreement defendant No.5 was entitled to occupy the entire property towards the front portion. In paragraph 20 of the written statement, defendant No.5 contended that the plaintiff was fully aware of all the legal proceedings that were instituted between the plaintiff and other persons, who claimed interest in the suit premises. He also urged that the plaintiff had claimed rental of Rs.250/- as being paid to defendants 1 to 4 by him in O.S.No.11115/1993, whereas in the present suit, he claimed that rental of Rs.200/- per month was paid, which was apparently false.
11. Having regard to the nature of the controversy raised and the nature of the question to be addressed, it is unnecessary to deal with the stand taken by the other defendants in their written statement.
12. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful and legal possession of suit property as a tenant under late Sri K.Rajashekar? (Recasted on 16.2.2000) RFA.CROB.27/2011 13
2) Whether plaintiff proves that D-1 toD-6 are interfering in his doing of business in suit property?
3) Whether D-5 proves that plaintiff is his
employee?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as prayed
for and for declaration that he is the tenant of suit property under late Sri K.Rajashekar?
(Recasted on 16.2.2000)
5) What order or decree?
Additional Issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit in view of there being no jural relationship between him and defendants 1 to 6?
2) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this matter?
13. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20. Defendant No.5/Cross-Objector herein examined himself as D.W.1 and three more witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4. Exs.D1 to D31 were produced and marked on his behalf.
RFA.CROB.27/201114
14. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, answered the important issues raised with regard to the proof of lawful and legal possession of the suit property by the plaintiff - respondent No.1 herein as tenant under late K.Rajashekar in the negative and also his allegations and assertions that defendants 1 to 6 were interfering in his business in the suit property as baseless. On the specific issue raised as to whether defendant No.5 - Cross Objector was able to prove that the plaintiff was his employee, the Trial Court returned the findings in the affirmative. Answering the additional issue regarding the locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the suit in view of there being no jural relationship between him and defendants 1 to 6, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his relationship as tenant under defendants 1 to 4 or under other defendants. The suit came to be dismissed declining the relief of declaration that the plaintiff was the tenant in the suit schedule property under late Rajashekar.
15. It is relevant to notice here that consistent with the plea taken in the written statement alleging fraud, perjury and false statement attributed to the plaintiff, the Cross Objector - RFA.CROB.27/2011 15 defendant No.5 filed an application before the Trial Court during the course of the trial seeking prosecution of the plaintiff for defamation. Defendant No.5 contended before the Trial Court that the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts and had come up with a false plea urging that he was a tenant under defendants 1 to 4, while in fact, his father was inducted into a portion of the suit schedule premises as an employee of defendant No.5 with an understanding that he will carry on the business in the said premises. In support of the same, defendant No.5 has produced a letter of appointment dated 03.08.1978 issued in favour of the father of the plaintiff vide Ex.D5.
16. A perusal of the said letter clearly reveals that the father of the plaintiff was appointed as an employee under defendant No.5 to carry out electrical repairs of four wheelers in the second shed belonging to defendant No.5 on certain terms. One of the terms as spelt out in the said letter is that the father of the plaintiff would be paid Rs.200/- as remuneration and in addition, he would be paid share of 50% out of the earnings made in servicing the auto electrical repairs. Another document Ex.D6 - an agreement dated 19.03.1990 was RFA.CROB.27/2011 16 executed by and between the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.5, wherein defendant No.5 has declared that the plaintiff had no interest or claim of possession over the second shed. The plaintiff acknowledged that his father was given tools and was continued in the premises. Similarly, the plaintiff also undertook to carry out auto electrical repair works inside the covered shed area only and he would not carry on the business in the open space and no customer's car would be permitted for parking in the open space and the open space was left for the use of defendant No.5 exclusively. This agreement bears the signature of the plaintiff. When this document is confronted to the plaintiff, he has admitted the signature, but has stated that the document was created by taking advantage of his signatures put on blank papers. Defendant No.5, on his part, has examined the witnesses to Ex.D6 - agreement and has proved the same.
17. The Trial Court has held that Ex.D6 - agreement was proved. It has also held that the father of the plaintiff was inducted into the premises as an employee and was carrying on business there in terms of letter of appointment - Ex.D5. Having held so and having answered all the issues against the RFA.CROB.27/2011 17 plaintiff and in favour of defendant No.5, the Trial Court has also found that defendant No.5 was able to establish his right over the schedule property by virtue of the settlement agreement produced at Ex.D7 entered into between defendant No.5 and Mr. K.Rajashekar.
18. Thus, the Trial Court, having returned specific and positive findings holding that defendant No.5 - Cross Objector herein had established that the plaintiff was employed by him and was in possession of the premises in that capacity, has rejected the request made by defendant No.5 to order prosecution of the plaintiff for intentionally taking a false defence. Reasons assigned for this are forthcoming in paragraph 21 of the judgment. The only reason assigned by the Court below is that though defendant No.5 had contended that the plaintiff was his employee and had executed an agreement as per Ex.D6 in 1990, he did not take any steps on the basis of the same. The fact that defendant No.5 kept quiet without taking any such action and allowed the plaintiff to continue in the suit schedule property has been taken as a factor against defendant No.5. The Trial Court has also further found that defendant No.5 being an advocate had remedy against the RFA.CROB.27/2011 18 plaintiff in terms of the agreement - Ex.D6 after the disposal of the suit. Therefore, the Trial Court rejected the prayer made by defendant No.5 for prosecution of the plaintiff reserving liberty to him to take action both under civil and criminal law.
19. It is necessary to further notice here that the plaintiff had preferred R.F.A.No.2406/2007 challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit. The said appeal was prosecuted till 2013 and on 30.01.2013, plaintiff got the appeal dismissed as withdrawn. In the meanwhile, the cross objector - defendant No.5 filed this cross objection aggrieved by the rejection of his request for directing prosecution against the plaintiff. Although there was delay in filing the cross objection, delay was condoned and the cross objection was entertained. This cross objection is restricted only for consideration of the question as to whether prosecution ought to have been ordered by the Court below against the plaintiff for the alleged false statement and for creating false document.
20. I have heard both parties. As can be seen from the plaint averments, keeping in mind the document - Ex.D5 under which the father of the plaintiff was inducted into the premises as an employee of defendant No.5 and the document Ex.D6 under RFA.CROB.27/2011 19 which the plaintiff himself was continued in possession of the premises, it is clear that the plaintiff had come up with a false averment in the suit stating that he was a tenant under defendants 1 to 4, when there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between defendants 1 to 4 on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other. Neither any lease deed is produced, nor any rent receipts are produced to show that there was any semblance of truth in this assertion made by the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 4 have denied that plaintiff was a tenant in any portion of the premises. It is thus clear that being fully aware of the fact that he was in possession of the front portion of the suit premises in a shed as inducted by defendant No.5 - Cross Objector herein vide Ex.D6, he has made false statement in the plaint duly verified by him and has denied the documents executed by him as per agreement produced at Ex.D6. He has come up with a false assertion that defendant No.5 had made use of his signature put on a blank paper attributing such serious and criminal act and conduct to defendant No.5 and has miserably failed to prove the same. The conduct of the plaintiff in coming up with such a plea is actuated by ulterior considerations and malafide intention of hanging on to the possession of the premises. The premises is situated in a prime RFA.CROB.27/2011 20 locality abutting Brigade Road in Bangalore City. Plaintiff wanted to make illegal gains out of the fact that he was in possession of the property. He had filed earlier another suit in O.S.No.11115/1993 against the very 5th defendant - Cross Objector for permanent injunction. He withdrew the said suit and filed the present suit less than a year thereafter against defendant No.5, but this time urging that other defendants along with defendant No.5 colluded together and were trying to disturb his peaceful enjoyment and possession of the property.
21. It is thus evident that the plaintiff has claimed to be in possession of the property measuring 38' X 78'. He has gone to the extent of contending that Ex.D8 - affidavit which he has sworn to and has filed in O.S.No.10001/1990 was fabricated by defendant No.5. He has denied the right of defendant No.5 over the suit property, unmindful of the fact that it was defendant No.5 who inducted his father into the premises and later on plaintiff continued in the same.
22. Looked from all angle, I find that it is a case where the plaintiff has tried all his tricks to misuse the process of the Court by taking a false plea at different stages in the proceedings. The single most purpose of any trial before the RFA.CROB.27/2011 21 Court of law is to find out the truth. The truth alone must triumph. Justice will be done when the truth is ascertained and the wrongdoer is shown his place in the litigation. Pleadings and documents are the most important tools apart from other oral evidence in ascertaining the truth. Introducing impurities in the process of filing the pleadings and producing documents by resorting to false allegations and assertions and fraudulent concoction would subvert the process of finding out the truth. The wrongdoer, who resorts to such methods, may get undue benefits in the process of long drawn litigation, though at the end he may lose the case, as the Court may ultimately scan through the materials and unearth the design of such litigation, but then by that time heavy damage would have been caused. Therefore, the due process of law and the purpose of arriving at the truth by following the due process would all get subverted. Hence, the Apex Court, time and again has come out very heavily on false claims stating that they really present serious problems, particularly in the real estate litigations, which is predominantly because of ever-escalating prices and also the litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties. In the case of MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUEIRA FERNANDES & OTHERS VS. ERASMO JACK DE SEQUEIRA (DEAD) RFA.CROB.27/2011 22 THROUGH LRS. - (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with such false claims made by the plaintiff and held in paragraph 81 & 82 of the judgment taking support from the previous judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of RAMRAMESHWARI DEVI VS. NIRMALA DEVI - (2011) 8 SCC 249 as under:
"81. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent.
82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi aptly observed at p.266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can RFA.CROB.27/2011 23 be solved or at least can be minimized if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp.267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
23. In my view, this is an appropriate case, where the Trial Court ought not to have brushed aside the fervent request made by defendant No.5 to initiate prosecution against the plaintiff for initiating the proceedings by making false statement before the Court intentionally in order to make illegal gains. Such an action was necessary having regard to the conduct exhibited by the plaintiff and in order to make it an exemplary case so as to discourage such litigation in future. In fact, it is this consideration that impels me to allow the cross objection filed by defendant No.5. Indeed, the cross objector has filed an application even in this proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking prosecution of the plaintiff.
RFA.CROB.27/201124
24. Section 340 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that either upon on application made to the Court or otherwise if the Court finds that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry has to be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence, then such Court may after such preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary to record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing and as per sub-section (3) of Section 340, if the complaint is by the High Court, the same shall be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorize in this behalf.
25. I am of the prima facie view, having regard to the materials adverted to above, that the plaintiff - respondent No.1 herein has to be proceeded against by initiating prosecution for false statement made by him in the plaint and in the evidence adduced and for creating false documents. Hence, I direct the registry to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the plaintiff - respondent No.1 herein in accordance RFA.CROB.27/2011 25 with the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with other relevant provisions of IPC.
Cross-Objection is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS