Delhi District Court
Smt. Chander Joon @ Sahabo Devi vs Sh. Sandeep Dabas on 27 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. R. B SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 (WEST): DELHI
RCA No. 34/14 ID No. 02401C0153662011
Smt. Chander Joon @ Sahabo Devi
W/o Sh. Virender Singh Joon,
R/o D12, House No. 141/1, Sector - 7,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085. ..... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Sandeep Dabas
S/o Late Sh. Bhoop Singh,
R/o House No. 387,
Vill. & P. O Kanjhawala,
Delhi. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 04.04.2011
Date of arguments heard : 23.09.2014
Date of Decision : 27.09.2014
J U D G M E N T
By this judgment I propose to dispose of an appeal filed under Section 341 of CPC against the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by Sh. Arun Goel, ld. Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in miscellaneous application no. M64/2010 in suit no. 199/2007 entitled Sandeep Dabas Vs. Sahabo Devi.
2. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as under:
The respondent herein, has filed the suit against the appellant herein, for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 1 of 8 defendant / appellant herein from demolishing / damaging the wall shown in red colour in the plan attached with the plaint. The above mentioned suit was disposed of as compromise by the Court of Ms. Chetna Singh, ld. Civil Judge (West), Delhi on 07.09.2009. On 07.09.2009 the respondent herein has filed the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w 151 CPC for withdrawal of above suit and said application was supported by an affidavit of the respondent herein alongwith the copy of the compromise deed dated 07.08.2009 which was typed in Hindi language on a judicial stamp paper of value of Rs. 50/. In the application, the respondent herein has claimed that the parties to the suit have amicably arrived at a compromise with intervention of the respectable persons and well wishers of both the parties and as such the plaintiff does not want to pursue the present case in view of the mutual compromise between the parties. The said compromise deed dated 07.08.2009 was purported to be entered into between the respondent herein that is Sh. Sandeep S/o Sh Bhoop Singh on the first part and Sh. Rajeev S/o Raj Singh and Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Sube Singh on the second party. Sh.
Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh were never the parties to the above mentioned suit.
The respondent, Sh. Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh with the common intention have committed offences of giving and fabricating false evidence, making false statement in declaration as using the same as true, dishonestly making false claim in the Court by forging and making the false document and using the same as genuine in relation to the proceedings in the suit. Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 2 of 8 Hence, all are liable to be prosecuted under Section 193/199/200/209/465/471/34 of IPC. Keeping in view the commission of the aforesaid offences, the appellant has filed the application under Section 340 Cr. P. C in the Court of Sh. Arun Goel, ld. Civil Judge (West), Delhi to initiate an enquiry u/s 340 Cr. P. C against the respondent herein and said Sh. Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh. Thereafter to record a finding to that affect and to make a complaint thereof in writing to the Court to a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction and further to send respondent herein and said Sh. Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh in custody. Ld. Civil Judge without issuing any notice of the said applications of the applicant to the respondent and Sh. Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh decided the application on merits without conducting an inquiry into the allegations of the appellant as averred in the said application vide impugned order dated 13.12.2010. Hence, this appeal mainly on the grounds that :
that Ld. Civil Judge erred while deciding the application of the appellant without issuing notice of the application to the respondent and passed the impugned order on merits.
that Ld. Civil Judge erred while holding that but "perusal of the agreement reveals that the father of the defendant as well as one of the person who had signed is same. It appears that one of them is the brother of the defendant and other is the nephew of the defendant".
that Ld. Civil Judge erred while holding that "the agreement was Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 3 of 8 arrived with the relatives of the defendant and he was withdrawing in pursuance of that agreement but now the defendant wants to initiate Section 340 Cr. P. C against the plaintiff.
that Ld. Civil Judge erred while holding that "here it appears that compromise was arrived between the parties at the result of the relative but now the defendant has walked out of such compromise and wants to initiate Section 340 Cr. P. C against the plaintiff. Ld. Civil Judge had again presumed as if the said compromise deed dated 07.08.2009 was executed between the respondent and the relatives of the appellant herein.
that Ld. Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the plaintiff has file an application u/o 23 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC supported by an affidavit whereby false averments have been made before the court that "the parties to this suit have amicably arrived a compromise with intervention of the respectable persons and well wishers of both the parties" which was never arrived at between the parties at any point of time.
that ld. Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant / applicant herein and not against Sh. Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh.
that Ld. Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the plaintiff and Sh. Rajeev and Sh. Raj Singh with common intention have committed offences of giving and fabricating false evidence, making false statement and declaration and using the same as true and making a false document and using the same as Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 4 of 8 genuine in relation to proceedings in above suit as mentioned u/s 195 Cr. P. C, hence all are liable to prosecute u/s 193/199/200/209/465/471/34 IPC.
It is, therefore, prayed to call the records of the concerned case file and set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 as passed by Sh. Arun Goel, ld. Civil Judge, (West), Delhi in Misc. Application no. M64/2010 in suit no.199/2007 and to remand back the case to the concerned Court for deciding the application of the appellant on merits after proper inquiry as per law.
3. On the contrary it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff that the plaintiff being dominus litus has every right to withdraw the suit and the plaintiff has withdrawn his suit vide order dated 07.09.2013 as a mutual compromise has taken place vide Ex. C1. By withdrawing the suit, the plaintiff has not caused any tenable loss to the defendant / appellant herein. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by Sh. Arun Goel, Ld. Civil Judge, West, Delhi do not call for any interference as the same is not having any illegality or infirmity.
4. I have heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the material on the record carefully.
5. After hearing arguments and on the perusal of the material on the record this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the respondent / plaintiff has withdrawn his suit vide order dated 07.09.2013 as some settlement stated to have been arrived which is Ex. C1. Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 5 of 8 Perusal of the compromise deed Ex. C1 reveals that the respondent / plaintiff is the first party and the second party is Sh. Rajiv S/o Raj Singh and Raj Singh S/o Sube Singh. Perusal of the memos of the parties of the suit reveals that the respondent / plaintiff Sh. Sandeep Dabas has filed the suit for permanent injunction against Smt. Sahabo Devi D/o Late Sh. Sube Singh, R/o H. No. 277, V & P.O Kanjhawala, Delhi. Meaningthereby, Smt. Sahabo Devi is the daughter of Sh. Sube Singh and the compromise deed has been signed by Sh. Raj Singh i.e real brother of the defendant Smt. Sahabo Devi and Sh. Rajiv S/o Sh. Raj Singh i.e. real nephew of the defendant Smt. Sahabo Devi.
6. It has been submitted by ld. counsel for the appellant during the arguments that Smt. Sahabo Devi is the daughter of Sh. Sube Singh of village Kanjhawala, Delhi, has come from her matrimonial home to her parents house for some time at Kanjhawala, Delhi. It shows that Smt. Sahabo Devi is the daughter who has come to reside at her parental house. Of course, her brother Sh. Raj Singh, her real nephew Sh. Rajiv might have settled the issue with the plaintiff being neighbours in a hope of living with peace and tranquility with neighbours for the well being of the families. The respondent / plaintiff might have been satisfied by the assurance given by Sh. Rajiv Singh and Sh. RajSingh as per Ex. C1 and respondent / plaintiff has withdrawn his suit as compromised. The respondent / plaintiff by withdrawing the suit has caused no substantial or tangible loss to the defendant / appellant. Consequently, the Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 6 of 8 application filed by the defendant / appellant under Section 340 Cr. P. C has been rightly dismissed by ld. Trial Court vide order dated 13.12.2010. Even ld. Trial court has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of "Jagjit Kaur Vs. Lieutenant Colonel Harjeet Singh 2000 (I) JCC Delhi 28" which is as follows for ready reference :
"The provisions of Section 340 are intended to provide safeguard against criminal prosecution on insufficient grounds filed against a party by his opponent motivated by a revengeful desire to harass the opponent. It is not the law that every false statement should attract the provisions of Section 340 Cr. PC. If the Court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by the parties in courts there would be very little time for courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. The gravity of the false statement, the circumstances under which such statement is made, the object of making false statement and its tendency to impede and impair the normal flow of the course of Justice are matters for consideration."
Ld. Trial Court has rightly applied the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the circumstances under which the plaintiff has withdrawn his case and object of withdrawing the suit is not having tendency to impede and impair the normal flow of course of Justice as no tangible loss of any kind has been caused by the withdrawal of the suit by the respondent / plaintiff.
7. Under the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the order of Sh. Arun Goel, ld. Civil Judge, West, Delhi dated 13.12.2010 is liable to be up hold as the same is not having any infirmity and Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 7 of 8 illegality calling for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
8. A copy of this judgment alongwith ld. trial court record be sent back forthwith to ld. trial court for necessary information and record.
9. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Court ( R. B SINGH )
on 27th of September, 2014 Addl. District Judge01, West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Chander Joon Vs. Sandeep Dabas Page 8 of 8