Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Thereafter, on 21.09.2023, defendant No.3 Pooran Chand Jeswani in Civil Suit No.189/2018, also preferred an application under Section 340 CrPC along with an application under Section 151 CPC to separately hear the application under Section 340 CrPC and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible.

6. Aggrieved by the inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the application preferred by the defendant-petitioner under Section 340 CrPC, the present writ petition has been filed.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no statutory mandate under Section 340 CrPC that such an application must be decided before final adjudication of the suit. The learned Trial Court is fully empowered to consider the application along with the final arguments or at any stage it considers as appropriate.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent, lastly, submitted that the learned Trial Court has thus rightly ordered that the application be considered along with the main suit in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that there is complete appreciation of evidence before adjudicating the application under Section 340 CrPC. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition is liable to dismissed.

(Emphasis Supplied)

20. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has chosen to consider the application under Section 340 CrPC along with the main suit. No statutory mandate has been pointed out requiring the learned Trial Court to decide such an application prior to final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the stage at which such an application is to be considered falls within the domain of judicial discretion of the Trial Court. The decision to examine the said application along with the final adjudication, in order to avoid piecemeal consideration and to ensure complete appreciation of evidence, cannot be termed delay in deciding the application under section 340 CrPC.

21. Furthermore, in the present case, the allegations levelled by the petitioner pertain to contradictions and alleged false (Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 03:21:41 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:7718] (9 of 9) [CW-8541/2025] statements made during testimony in a pending civil suit concerning immovable property. Whether such contradictions are material, deliberate and of such nature as to warrant prosecution for perjury can appropriately be assessed by the learned Trial Court upon comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record. The mere pendency of the application under Section 340 CrPC for consideration along with the main suit does not, by itself, amount to delay in deciding the application under Section 340 CrPC.