Appeal against dismissal of perjury application filed in civil suit. Court agreed that prosecution depends on concluding pleadings were intentionally made to mislead, ruling appeal dismissed.
Leave parties to bear their own costs. Original order against perjury application stands affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.S.A.No.164 of 2012
Thamiraparani Investments Private Limited,
rep. by its Director P.Ram Mohan,
D-1, Srishti Crescendo,
No.24, Desika Road,
Mylapore, Chenai-600 004. ... Appellant/Defendant
Vs
1.V.Rajendran
2.R.Padma
3.R.Satish Raj
4.Rajeswari Sathish
5.R.Ganesh Raj
6.Usha Selvarathinam
7.P.Selvarathinam
8.Jeya
9.K.Mahalingaswamy
10.N.Ayyamperumal ... Respondents/Plaintiffs
Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.01.2012 made in Application No.6909 of 2010 in C.S.No.51 of 2005 on the file of this Court.
Appln.No.6909 of 2010 : Application praying this court to take action and punish the Respondents for the acts of prejury committed with regard to the averments in the affidavit sworn in support of O.A.No.58 of 2005 in C.S.No.51 of 2005.
For Appellant : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondents : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The learned Single Judge, on an application filed by the original fourth defendant alleging perjury to prosecute on account of the averments in the plaint, has found that only if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the pleadings are made intentionally with a motive to mislead the Court, the question of perjury would arise and an enquiry should be made in any offence at that stage. Since the suit was at the initial stage and the correctness of the motive was yet to be seen, the application was dismissed.
The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.R.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.1083 +2cc's to Mr.Prakash Goklaney, Advocate, S.R.No.1067
O.S.A.No.164 of 2012
VGI(CO) CA(18/01/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether perjury can be prosecuted at the initial stage of a suit when the motive to mislead is yet to be determined.
Thamiraparani Investments Private Limited
V. Rajendran
R. Padma
R. Satish Raj
Rajeswari Sathish
R. Ganesh Raj
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
