ASHOK KRIPLANI Vs. JETHANAND JETHWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) THE appellant seeks enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as respondent No.1 (Dr.Jethanand Jethwani) has taken a false plea that there was a 'family settlement' among the parties and it was acted upon. Allegations against respondent No.2 (A.K.Mishra, Advocate) are that he filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on behalf of the respon0dent No.1 without verifying the facts. It is further alleged that he furnished wrong information to the Court and falsely claimed that Chamber No.102, New Lawyers' Chambers, Supreme Court, was allotted to him. Appellant's contention is that the impugned order cannot be sustained as no such 'family settlement' was acted upon.

(3.) THE trial court was of the opinion that there was no attempt on the part of respondent No.1 to create false evidence with the intention to interfere in the administration of justice or to influence the opinion of the Court. It was further observed that appropriate Court at appropriate time would take the decision on the stands of the parties at the time of culmination of trial. It further observed that at no stage respondent No.2 impersonated to get allotment of Chamber No. 102, New Lawyers' Chambers, Supreme Court. The plaintiffs' case for partition of the property was based upon the execution of Will dated 24.01.1992 by deceased Lekhraj Jethwani. The defendant No.2 categorically denied execution of any Will and pleaded that there was a family settlement dated 12.01.2003 among the parties and it was acted upon. The plaintiffs have denied the existence of any such 'family settlement'. The trial court at preliminary stage found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and returned the plaint. The parties are yet to establish their respective pleas by adducing evidence during trial. The defendant No.2 cannot be restrained to set up the plea of existence of 'family settlement' in the pleadings. A copy of family settlement has been placed on record by the plaintiffs though signatures on it are alleged to have been obtained forcibly. That aspect is to be decided by the Trial Court. Taking a specific plea in the pleadings to set up one's case cannot be considered as false plea with an intention to fabricate the documents to influence the Court's verdict. It is a matter of trial whether the plea taken by the defendant No.2 in the suit is correct or not. I also find no substance that any proceeding can be initiated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 for filing the reply without verification of facts or that he had filed power of attorney where the address was shown as Chamber No. 102, New Lawyers' Chambers, Supreme Court. The Trial Court was justified to observe that there are no allegations/ evidence that respondent No.2 impersonated before any authority to claim allotment of the said chamber.