Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ajay Arora vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd on 14 February, 2014

           IN THE  COURT  OF SH. APOORV SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGE­I, 
                     NEW  DELHI  DISTRICT,  NEW DELHI

C.S. No: 304/10
Unique Case ID No.02403C0320472010

Ajay Arora
S/o Sh. J.D. Arora
R/o B­264/11, Derawal Nagar
G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi­110033.
                                                                                        ... Plaintiff

                                                   Versus
Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
G­7, Ground Floor, Connought Circus
Opposite Madras Hotel Block, New Delhi­110001.
                                                                                       ...Defendant
                                                                  Date of Institution: 26.11.2010
                                                            Date of Reserving Order: 20.12.2013
                                                                      Date of Order: 14.02.2014

       ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 CPC  AND 
                                      SECTION 340 OF Cr.PC.
     1.

The plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for disposal of the application moved under Section 340 of Cr.P.C which is filed during the pendency of the civil suit. In the application moved under Section 340 Cr.P.C it is stated that the defendant witness DW1 Sh. Sharad Mehta had deposed in his evidence affidavit that the writing alleged on Ex. PW1/5 is not of any employee of the defendant and the plaintiff has deliberately filed frivolous documents. However, during cross examination DW1 Sh. Sharad Mehta had deposed that he is not acquainted or aware of handwriting of other employee of the company and deposed that he does not know if the document Ex. PW1/5 CS No. 304/10 Ajay Arora Vs Taneja Developers Page 1 of 2 bears the signature or handwriting of Sh. Anil Kohli. It is stated that the DW1 Sh. Sharad Mehta deliberately deposed wrong facts as he was aware of the fact that Sh. Anil Kohli was the employee of defendant and he was aware of his handwriting on Ex. PW1/5. It is stated in the application that the defendant witness Sh. Sharad Mehta deliberately made false statement and action should be taken against him under Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C and Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

2. This court has heard Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff/applicant and perused the record.

3. The dispute between the parties in the present suit is of civil nature and inter­ alia one of the issues was that whether defendant had granted any waiver of interest to the plaintiff on 25.09.2010. The issue was raised as the defendant had denied such waiver having been given to the plaintiff. While deciding the suit, this court had decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. It is obvious that whenever any dispute between the two parties arises, a fact alleged by one party is denied by other party. The defendant witness against whom the proceedings are sought to be initiated had also denied certain facts which later came to be successfully proved by the plaintiff. Keeping the above in consideration, the court finds that there is no deliberate intention of the defendant witness to state false evidence or commit forgery or any offence which would lead this court to opine that inquiry should be made into an offence referred in Section 195 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The applications under Section 151 of CPC and under Section 340 Cr.PC are dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the Open Court                                         (Apoorv Sarvaria)
on 14th February, 2014                           Civil Judge­I, New Delhi District/New Delhi


CS No. 304/10
Ajay Arora Vs Taneja Developers                                                                      Page 2 of 2