JINDAL POLYSTER LIMITED Vs. RAHUL JAURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 5.5.2005 dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, subject to cost of Rs.1000/-.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate-learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Bajwa, learned Counsel for respondent for final disposal of the matter and have gone through the impugned order and the file.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,02,700/- and a sum of Rs.47,300/- towards interest against the petitioner herein (defendant in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant'). The defendant filed written statement denying that the plaintiff had been appointed as insurance consultant on the terms and conditions mentioned in the plaint and added that the appointment letter dated 29.4.1988 was issued by M/s. Hindustan Synthetic Fibres, A Division of "Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited" and not by the defendant. The correspondence done by "Hindustan Pipe Limited" with the plaintiff was also denied. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, levelling allegations of perjury against the defendant.