1

IN THE COURT OF ____ CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-1,

DISTRICT COURT, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Case No.- Civil Suit No. RCS712A/2017
M. G. Parate ....Plaintiff

VERSUS

Ankit Chansauriya ...Defendant

INDEX
S.No. Description Ann. No. Pg. No.
1 Application by defendant / respondent - 1-30
under Order IX Rule 13 read with section
195, 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 read with section 2 of the Contempt
of Courts Act 1971 for initiating perjury
proceedings against the plaintiff by
holding appropriate inquiry for filling
false affidavit while launching instant suit
and for setting aside Ex Party Decree
obtained fraudulently.
2 Certified copy of impugned Judgement & A-1
Decree dated 26-08-2019 passed in Civil
Suit No. RCS712A/2017 titled “M. G.
Parate Vs. Ankit Chansauriya”
3 Certified copy of order sheet of the A-2
impugned Civil Suit.
 2

4 Copy of Voter ID & Driving License of A-3

present defendant.
5 Copy of plaint of plaintiff. A-4
6 Certified copy of report of summon server A-5
dated 09-06-2018.
7 Certified copy of relevant summoning A-6
order and other relevant documents.
8 Vakalatnama. -

Place: Bhopal
Date: 14-08-2023 Dr. Prashant Pathak
(Counsel for Defendant)
 3

IN THE COURT OF ____ CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-1,

DISTRICT COURT, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Case No.- Civil Suit No. RCS712A/2017

M. G. Parate ....Plaintiff
S/o Shri Ganpat Rao Parte,
R/o A1604, Jasmeen Tower, Basant Vihar, Thane,
West Maharastra

VERSUS

Ankit Chansauriya ...Defendant

S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Chansauriya,
R/o Sr. HIG Flat No.3, Minal Enclave –II,
Bhopal (M.P.)

APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT UNDER

ORDER IX RULE 13 READ WITH SECTION 195, 340 OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 READ WITH SECTION 2 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 FOR INITIATING
PERJURY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF BY
HOLDING APPROPRIATE INQUIRY FOR FILLING FALSE
AFFIDAVIT WHILE LAUNCHING INSTANT SUIT AND FOR
SETTING ASIDE EX PARTY DECREE OBTAINED
FRAUDULENTLY.

The defendant / respondent most humbly, has to submit as under:-

INTRODUCTION:

1. That, being aggrieved by the judgement & decree dated 26-08-2019

passed in Civil Suit No. RCS712A/2017 titled “M. G. Parate Vs.
 4

Ankit Chansauriya” instant application for setting aside Ex Party

Decree is being filled as the said judgement and decree dated 26-08-
2019 has been passed ex party thus violating the Principals of
Natural Justice by which without being summons served as
contemplated under the provisions of section 30-A read with Order
V Rule 9 and on the back of petitioner, the plaintiff got successful in
obtaining ex party decree. In this connection, the certified copy of
impugned Judgement & Decree dated 26-08-2019 passed in Civil
Suit No. RCS712A/2017 titled “M. G. Parate Vs. Ankit
Chansauriya” is filed herewith as Annexure A-1.

FACTS & GROUNDS OF THE CASE:-

2. That, the plaintiff on being fake and fictitious facts & grounds on
date 01-11-2017 instituted a Civil Suit before the Civil Court Bhopal
against the present defendant with a false prayer of obtaining / getting
possession of flat No. B-03, Minal Enclave, Near Gulmohar Coloney,
Bhopal.
3. That, upon the above mentioned Civil Suit of plaintiff, the concerning
Civil Court has taken cognizance and thus on date 06-11-2017
ordered to issue summons to the present defendant by simultaneously
ordering to file Written Statement (WS) against the Civil Suit of
plaintiff.
4. That, the certified copy of order sheet of the impugned Civil Suit
which is being filled herewith as Annexure A-2, reflects that on date
15-01-2018, 27-02-2018, 05-04-2018 & 20-06-2018 the concerning
Civil Court has ordered to issue summons to the present defendant
but all the times the so issued summons could not be served to the
present defendant as at the relevant time, the present defendant was
 5

living in Indore at an address BJP Bhawan, Jawara Compound,

Indore (M.P.). The plaintiff was very well knowing this fact that the
present defendant is resident of Indore at the above mentioned
address i.e. of BJP Bhawan, Jawara Compound, Indore (M.P.) despite
of that, the plaintiff by making conterminous act, willfully and
intentionaly mentioned wrong address of present defendant as the
inherent intention of the plaintiff was to any how obtain the Ex Party
Decree from the concerning Civil Court. Further, in support of above
made submission the copy certain government documents are being
filled in the tabular form to exhibit that since the year 2013 the
present defendant is resident of BJP Bhawan, Jawara Compound,
Indore (M.P.)
S.No. Nature of Date of Document Residential
Government Issue of Number Address
Document Government mentioned
Document in the
Government
Document
1. Voter ID Card 19-03-2013 NVL7161003 BJP Bhawan,
Jawara
Compound,
Indore,
Tehsil
Indore,
District
Indore,
Indore
(M.P.)-
452001
2. Indian Union 22-09-2016 MP09N- BJP Bhawan,
Driving 2016- Jawara
License 0575283 Compound,
Indore
(M.P.)
 6

The copy of above described documents are jointly filled as

Annexure A-3.
5. That, now let us refer to the provisions of law which makes
obligation for the plaintiff to make correct discloser of the defendant
address. In this connection, kind attention of this Hon’ble Court is
invited to the provisions of Section 26 & Order VI of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and the same runs as under,
Section 26 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(1) Every suit shall be instituted by the

presentation of a plaint or in such other
manner as may be prescribed.

(2) In every plaint, facts shall be proved by

affidavit.

Provided that such an affidavit shall be in

the form and manner as prescribed under
Order VI of Rule 15A.

ORDER VI IN CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908

ORDER VI
Pleadings generally
1. Pleading.—“Pleading” shall mean plaint
or written statement.
2. Pleading to state material facts and not
evidence.—
 7

(1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain

only, a statement in a concise form of the
material facts on which the party pleading
relies for his claim or defense, as the case
may be, but not the evidence by which they
are to be proved.
(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be
divided into paragraphs, numbered
consecutively, each allegation being, so far
as is convenient, contained in a separate
paragraph.
(3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be
expressed in a pleading in figures as well as
in words.
3. Forms of pleading. —The forms in
Appendix A when applicable, and where they
are not applicable forms of the like
character, as nearly as may be, shall be used
for all pleadings.
3A. Forms of pleading in Commercial
Courts. ––In a commercial dispute, where
forms of pleadings have been prescribed
under the High Court Rules or Practice
Directions made for the purposes of such
commercial disputes, pleadings shall be in
such forms.
4. Particulars to be given where necessary.
—In all cases in which the party pleading
relies on any misrepresentation, fraud,
 8

breach of trust, willful default, or undue

influence, and in all other cases in which
particulars may be necessary beyond such as
are exemplified in the forms aforesaid,
particulars (with dates and items if
necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.
5. Further and better statement, or
particulars. Omitted by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of
1999), s. 16 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002).
6. Condition precedent. —Any condition
precedent, the performance or occurrence of
which is intended to be contested, shall be
distinctly specified in his pleading by the
plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be;
and, subject thereto, an averment of the
performance or occurrence of all conditions
precedent necessary for the case of the
plaintiff or defendant shall be implied in his
pleading.
7. Departure. —No pleading shall, except by
way of amendment, raise any new ground of
claim or contain any allegation of fact
inconsistent with the previous pleadings of
the party pleading the same.
8. Denial of contract. —Where a contract is
alleged in any pleading, a bare denial of the
same by the opposite party shall be construed
only as a denial in fact of the express
 9

contract alleged or of the matters of fact

from which the same may be implied, and
not as a denial of the legality or sufficiency
in law of such contract.
9. Effect of document to be stated. —
Wherever the contents of any document are
material, it shall be sufficient in any pleading
to state the effect thereof as briefly as
possible, without setting out the whole or any
part thereof, unless the precise words of the
document or any part thereof are material.
10. Malice, knowledge, etc.—Wherever it is
material to allege malice, fraudulent
intention, knowledge or other condition of
the mind of any person, it shall be sufficient
to allege the same as a fact without setting
out the circumstances from which the same
is to be inferred.
11. Notice. —Wherever it is material to
allege notice to any person of any fact,
matter or thing, it shall be sufficient to allege
such notice as a fact, unless the form or the
precise terms of such notice, or the
circumstances from which such notice is to
be inferred, are material.
12. Implied contract, or relation. —
Whenever any contract or any relation
between any persons is to be implied from a
series of letters or conversations or otherwise
 10

from a number of circumstances, it shall be

sufficient to allege such contract or relation
as a fact, and to refer generally to such
letters, conversations or circumstances
without setting them out in detail. And if in
such case the person so pleading desires to
rely in the alternative upon more contracts or
relations than one as to be implied from such
circumstances, he may state the same in the
alternative.
13. Presumptions of law. —Neither party
need in any pleading allege any matter of
fact which the law presumes in his favor or
as to which the burden of proof lies upon the
other side unless the same has first been
specifically denied (e.g., consideration for a
bill of exchange where the plaintiff sues only
on the bill and not for the consideration as a
substantive ground of claim).
14. Pleading to be signed. —Every pleading
shall be signed by the party and his pleader
(if any): Provided that where a party
pleading is, by reason of absence or for other
good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it
may be signed by any person duly authorized
by him to sign the same or to sue or defend
on his behalf
14A. Address for service of notice. —
 11

(1) Every pleading, when filed by a party,

shall be accompanied by a statement in the
prescribed form, signed as provided in rule
14, regarding the address of the party.
(2) Such address may, from time to time, be
changed by lodging in Court a form duly
filled up and stating the new address of the
party and accompanied by a verified petition.
(3) The address furnished in the statement
made under sub-rule (1) shall be called the
“registered address” of the party, and shall,
until duly changed as aforesaid, be deemed
to be the address of the party for the purpose
of service of all processes in the suit or in
any appeal from any decree or order therein
made and for the purpose of execution, and
shall hold good, subject as aforesaid, for a
period of two years after the final
determination of the cause or matter.
(4) Service of any process may be effected
upon a party at his registered address in all
respects as though such party resided
thereat.
(5) Where the registered address of a party is
discovered by the Court to be incomplete.
false or fictitious, the Court may, either on its
own motion, or on the application of any
party, order—
 12

(a) in the case where such registered address

was furnished by a plaintiff, stay of the suit,
or
(b) in the case where such registered address
was furnished by a defendant, his defence be
struck out and he be placed in the same
position as if he had not put up any defence.
(6) Where a suit is stayed or a defence is
struck out under sub-rule (5), the plaintiff or,
as the case may be, the defendant may, after
furnishing his true address, apply to the
Court for an order to set aside the order of
stay or, as the case may be, the order striking
out the defence.
(7) The Court, if satisfied that the party was
prevented by any sufficient cause from filing
the true address at the proper time, shall set
aside the order of stay or order striking out
the defence, on such terms as to costs or
otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a
day for proceeding with the suit or defence,
as the case may be.
(8) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the
Court from directing the service of a process
at any other address, if, for any reason, it
thinks fit to do so.
15. Verification of pleadings. —
(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for
the time being in force, every pleading shall
 13

be verified at the foot by the party or by one

of the parties pleading or by some other
person proved to the satisfaction of the Court
to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by
reference to the numbered paragraphs of the
pleading, what he verifies of his own
knowledge and what he verifies upon
information received and believed to be true.
(3) The verification shall be signed by the
person making it and shall state the date on
which and the place at which it was signed.
(4) The person verifying the pleading shall
also furnish an affidavit in support of his
pleadings.
15A. Verification of pleadings in a
commercial dispute. —
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
Rule 15, every pleading in a commercial
dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the
manner and form prescribed in the Appendix
to this Schedule.
(2) An affidavit under sub-rule (1) above
shall be signed by the party or by one of the
parties to the proceedings, or by any other
person on behalf of such party or parties who
is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case and who
is duly authorised by such party or parties.
 14

(3) Where a pleading is amended, the

amendments must be verified in the form and
manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the
Court orders otherwise.
(4) Where a pleading is not verified in the
manner provided under sub-rule (1), the
party shall not be permitted to rely on such
pleading as evidence or any of the matters set
out therein.
(5) The Court may strike out a pleading
which is not verified by a Statement of Truth,
namely, the affidavit set out in the Appendix
to this Schedule.]
16. Striking out pleadings. —The Court may
at any stage of the proceedings order to be
struck out or amended any matter in any
pleading—
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass
or delay the fair trail of the suit, or
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the
process of the Court.
17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court
may at any stage of the proceedings allow
either party to alter or amend his pleadings
in such manner and on such terms as may be
just, and all such amendments shall be made
as may be necessary for the purpose of
 15

determining the real questions in controversy

between the parties: Provided that no
application for amendment shall be allowed
after the trial has commenced, unless the
Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of
due diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of trial.
18. Failure to amend after Order. —If a
party who has obtained an order for leave to
amend does not amend accordingly within
the time limited for that purpose by the order,
or if no time is thereby limited then within
fourteen days from the date of the order, he
shall not be permitted to amend after the
expiration of such limited time as aforesaid
or of such fourteen days, as the case may be,
unless the time is extended by the Court.
STATE AMENDMENT Uttar Pradesh
Amendment of Order VI of the First
Schedule. — In the First Schedule to the
said Code, in Order VI, in rule 15, in sub-
rule (1), for words, “on oath administered by
an officer empowered under section 137 of
the Code,” [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 31 of
1978, s. 4]

6. That, from the above mentioned provisions of law, it is apparent that

the plaintiff was bound by law to give “Registered Address” of the
present defendant correctly but the plaintiff, upon false affidavit, has
 16

intentionally and willfully has mentioned false & incorrect

“Registered Address” of the present defendant and in this
connection, the copy of plaint of plaintiff is filled herewith as
Annexure A-4 in which the “Registered Address” of the present
defendant has been mentioned as “Shri Ankit Chansoriya, S/o
Ramesh Chandra Chansoriya, Age around 35 years, Resident of Flat
No. D-03, Minal Enclave, Near Gulmohar Coloney, Arera Coloney,
E-8, Bhopal (M.P.) while the correct “Registered Address” of the
present defendant ought to have been as “Shri Ankit Chansoriya, S/o
Ramesh Chandra Chansoriya, BJP Bhawan, Jawara Compound,
Indore (M.P.)”
7. That, from the all above it is apparent that the plaintiff has played
foul with the present defendant and also cheated the concerning Civil
Court by filling false affidavit with regard of “Registered Address” of
the present defendant and that’s why all the times when the
concerning Civil Court has issued summons for the present
defendant, the same could not be duly served and thus returned
unserved. In this connection, the present defendant would like to
draw the kind attention of this Hon’ble towards the report of summon
server dated 09-06-2018, copy of which along with other relevant
document are filled herewith as Annexure A-5, which clearly reveals
that the summon server has very specifically mentioned that the
present defendant has not residing at the given address and without
the identification of residential address of present defendant by
plaintiff, the summons could not be served.
8. That, now coming to the Ex Party proceedings of order sheet dated
10-07-2018 by which an application filled / prayer made by plaintiff
to explore the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC, 1908 for
making service of summons by way of paper publication was allowed
 17

by the concerning Civil Court. At this juncture, it would be relevant

to refer the said provisions of law reading as under,
ORDER 5, RULE 20 CPC
20. Substituted service.
(1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is
reason to believe that the defendant is keeping
out of the way for the purpose of avoiding
service, or that for any other reason the
summons cannot be served in the ordinary way,
the Court shall order the summons to be served
by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous
place in the Court-house, and also upon some
conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which
the defendant is known to have last resided or
carried on business or personally worked for
gain, or in such other manner as the Court
thinks fit.

(1A) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1)

orders service by an advertisement in a
newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily
newspaper circulating in the locality in which
the defendant is last known to have actually and
voluntarily resided, carried on business or
personally worked for gain.

(2) Effect of substituted service- Service

substituted by order of the Court shall be as
 18

effectual as if it had been made on the defendant

personally.
(3) Where service substituted, time for
appearance to be fixed- Where service is
substituted by order of the Court, the Court shall
fix such time for the appearance of the
defendant as the case may require.

9. That, the Ex Party proceedings of order sheet dated 20-11-2018 itself

reveals that the plaintiff has published its paper advertisement in
News Paper “People Samachar Bhopal” which is News Paper of very
low circulation in Bhopal. Further, since the present defendant was
residing at Indore at that relevant time, the paper advertisement ought
to have made in a News Paper of Indore. Further, the order sheet
dated 20-11-2018 reveals that, as per clause Order 20 Rule 1, no
Notices have been affixed in some conspicuous place in the Court-
house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house in which
the defendant was residing i.e. in Indore (M.P.). As such, there is
clear cut violation of provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC on the
part of plaintiff and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice
with the present defendant by which an Ex Party Decree has been
passed upon the back of present defendant.
10.That, now coming to malafide part of the plaintiff by which, the
plaintiff has, by giving false & incorrect “Registered Address” of the
present defendant by way of fraudulent act got successful to obtain
Ex Party decree against the present defendant. At this juncture now
the question arises how the law deals with such kind of fraudulent
plaintiffs who not only cheats the defendant but also befool
concerning Civil Courts.
 19

11.That, the present defendant only came to know about when last
month the present defendant was served with a summon by the Court
of III Civil Judge Class 1 Presiding Officer Shri Tathagat Yagnik
which has been issued to present defendant in a execution petition
preferred by present plaintiff against the present defendant for
execution of impugned Ex Party Decree dated 26-08-2019 as now
onwards 2020, the present defendant has shifted from Indore and
residing in my owned flat No. D-03, Minal Enclave, Bhopal where
the summons for execution case has been duly served to the present
defendant then only the present defendant applied the certified copies
of all relevant record and documents and thus on date 10-08-2023
received the relevant Ex Party Decree and other relevant record /
order sheet and without making any delay, now is present before this
Hon’ble Court for setting aside impugned Ex Party Decree and for
initiating appropriate perjury proceedings against the fraudulent
plaintiff. In this connection, the certified copy of relevant summoning
order and other relevant documents are annexed and filled herewith
as Annexure A-6.
12.That, on the pretext of all above regarding the falsification made by
plaintiff, the present defendant would like to submit that the plaintiff
has, upon affidavit, intentionally and willfully made false
assertions before this Hon’ble Court and the plaintiff is taking
this Hon’ble Court just for a ride to initiate the instant false &
frivolous suit upon the foundation of false affidavit.
13.That, in view of the submission made herein above, now the question
arises that whether or not, the plaintiff has committed any offence by
filing false affidavit during the Couse of Civil Proceedings. This
question has been properly answered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court in the AFR case of Mahesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And
 20

Another, MCRC 12840/2016, where on date on 24 August, 2016,

while adverting the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
various judgments, the Hon’ble Court pleased to hold that filling of
false affidavit in Civil Proceedings attracts penal punishments. The
concerning observations of the Hon’ble Court are being reproduced
herein below, reading as under,
Rival submission falls for consideration.
The silent features of giving false evidence under Section
191 IPC are:-
(i) intentionally making a false statement, or
(ii) declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation
to speak the truth.
The giving of false evidence amounts to practicing of
fraud upon the court. Thus to make a statement of false
evidence within the meaning of this section, it must be
established that the person was legally bound by an oath
or an express provision of law (a) to state the truth, or (b)
to make a declaration upon any subject.
In certain cases, the law requires a declaration from a
person on verification in a pleading, and if such a
declaration is made falsely it will come under this clause.
Section 191 and 192 deal with perjury and filing of false
affidavit in pleadings would be covered under Section 191.
Section 191 deals with evidence on oath and Section 192
with fabricating false affidavits; the offence under Section
191 IPC is constituted by swearing falsely when one is
bound by oath to state the truth because a declaration
made under an oath. The definition of the offence of
giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits. The
 21

offence may also fall within Section 192 which, inter alia,
lays down that a person is said to fabricate false evidence
if he makes a document containing a false statement
intending that such false statement may appear in
evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in
evidence may cause any person who, in such proceedings
is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an
erroneous opinion touching any point material to the
result of such proceedings. Therefore, where declarations
in affidavits which were tendered in the Court to be taken
into consideration, the authors of the affidavit clearly
intended the statement to appear in evidence in a judicial
proceedings and so appearing, to cause the Court to
entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the
compromise, therefore, the offence would fall within
Section 191, 192 which is punishable under Section 193
IPC, therefore, it was held that the authors of the
affidavits were guilty of offence of giving false evidence or
fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in
judicial proceedings. (Refer: Baban Singh and another vs.
Jagdish Singh and others (AIR 1967 68).
Where a verification is specific and deliberately false,
there is nothing in law to prevent a person from being
proceeded for contempt. But it must be remembered that
the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such
statements may injure this or that party to litigation but
how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus
produce mischievous consequences to the administration
of justice. A person is under a legal obligation to verify the
 22

allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies

falsely, he comes under the clutches of law. Consequently,
there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment
in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of
offence under Section 191 IPC. It is not necessary that a
person should have appeared in the witness box.
The offence stands committed and completed by the filing
of such pleading.
In Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 the
accused, a police officer, was called upon to make a
statement against an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus in which it was
alleged that the accused had illegally detained a man in
police custody. In his written (statement), the accused filed
a false affidavit denying that the man was never arrested
by the police or was in his custody. It was held that the
accused was legally bound to place the true facts before
the court in his affidavit and since the statements made by
him in the affidavit were found to be false, it was held that
he has committed the offence under Section 193 IPC for
giving false evidence as defined in Section 191 IPC.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1753.)

Section 191 contemplates declarations which a person is
bound by law to make. The most familiar instances of
such declarations are plaints and pleadings in suits. A
person being under a legal obligation to verify facts in
plaints and pleadings is liable to be punished under
 23

Section 193 for perjury, if he verifies falsely. (Asgar Ali

Mulla Ibrahimji vs. Emperor AIR 1943 Nag 17(18).
Where a person falsely verifies a written statement he will
be liable for perjury. Where as person falsely verifies an
execution application he will be liable for perjury.
(Emperor vs. Padam Singh AIR 1930 All 490).
An affidavit is 'evidence' within the meaning of Section
191 IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is
guilty of perjury. The definition of the offence of giving
false evidence applies to the affidavits. (Parag Dutt vs.
Emperor AIR 1930 Oudh 62 (63)).
Filing of a false affidavit in a proceedings pending before
the Civil Court would amount to an offence falling under
Section 193 IPC and proceedings would have to be
initiated on a complaint in writing by that court. In
Kailash Mangal vs. Ramesh Chand (D) Through Legal
Representative (LAWS (SC)-2015-1-117) Supreme Court
held as follows:
"In the instant case, the false affidavit alleged to have
been filed by the appellant was in a proceeding pending
before the civil court and the offence falls under Section
of the 193 of the IPC and the proceeding ought to have
been initiated on the complaint in writing by that Court
under Section 195 (1)(b)(i)of the (Cr.P.C.). Since the
offence is said to have been committed in relation to or in
a proceeding in a civil court.
14. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma
Vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 3 SCC 757], in a perjury matter, pleased
to hold as under,
 24

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short

the Act) defines criminal contempt as "the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible
representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalised or tend to
scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any
court; (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with
the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or
tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the
administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any
conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice or the due course of judicial
proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal
contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial
proceedings not only has the tendency of causing
obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but
has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere
with the administration of justice. The filing of false
affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law
exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting
the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be
permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a
mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties
to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses.
Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or
obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by
resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal
contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be
dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false
 25

affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts

aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court
can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake
public confidence in the judicial institutions because the
very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be
a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed
to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false
affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating
false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has
to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity
must be dealt with sternly so that the message perculates
loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine
the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course
of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, [1995] 1 SCC 421,
the respondent produced a false and fabricated certificate
to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case.
This action was found to be an act amounting to
interference with the administration of justice. Brother
Han-saria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: "the
stream of administration of justice has to remain
unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial
firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of
to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also
to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse
to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if
anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes
 26

with the ad-ministration of justice. Such persons are

required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them
for the wrong done, but also to deter others from
indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people
in the system of administration of justice."

15.That, as held by various High Courts & Hon’ble Supreme Court that
the offence of perjury stands committed and completed by the filing
of false affidavit & fabricated documents. Hence, initiation of perjury
proceedings now becomes inevitable as the present plaintiff is
causing mental stress and destroying the peace of life of the present
defendant by committing offences as described under the provisions
of section 191,192 & 193 of Indian Penal Code 1860 read with
section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
16. That, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on date 26-04-2018 in Writ
Petition No.14039 OF 2017, “Union of India Vs. Mr. Haresh V.
Milani and Anr.” by referring various Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgments held that the perjury application is to be decided first
before entering into the merits of the case. For the sake of simplicity,
the exact contents of the said judgment is being reproduced reading
as under,
1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent,

on a very short point, as to whether the Civil Application No.2939 of

2017, filed by respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, has to be decided and enquired into first before the Writ

Petition filed by petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, which is challenging the order of amendment in the plaint,

allowed by the trial Court.

 27

2] According to learned counsel for respondent, as some false

and misleading statements are made by the petitioner, to their own

knowledge, in the Writ Petition, therefore, respondent has moved this

Civil Application for taking action against the petitioner under

Section 340 C.P.C. It is submitted that the writ petition can be

decided as per law, only on the basis of result of the enquiry under

Section 340 C.P.C. and therefore, this Application should be decided

first.

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner, has however, denied

that any false averments are made in the writ petition and submitted

that the writ petition needs to be heard first as the proceeding before

the trial Court are unnecessarily stalled. It is submitted that filing of

such Civil Application is an attempt on the part of respondent to

continue to be in unlawful possession of the suit land, as respondent

knows that the hearing of the application filed under Section 340

C.P.C. which is though baseless and false, is going to consume time of

this Court.

4] Learned counsel for respondent has, in support of his

submission relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court, in the

case of Syed Nazim Husain -vs- The Additional Principal Judge

Family Court and anr in Writ Petition No.(M/S) of 2002, wherein also

similar point was raised as to whether the application under Section

340 C.P.C., has to be decided first before adjudicating the proceeding

in which the said application was filed. By it’s order, Allahabad High

Court has directed the trial Court to dispose of the application moved
 28

by petitioner under Section 340 C.P.C., before proceeding further in

accordance with law.

5] Learned counsel for respondent has also relied upon the

order dated 15th December, 2017, passed by this Court [Coram : A.S.

Gadkari, J.], in Criminal Application No.728 of 2017; wherein also

this Court has recorded the submission of learned counsel for

respondent that his application preferred under Section 340 C.P.C, be

heard first in point of time and accordingly adjourned the matter to

2nd February, 2018.

6] Learned counsel for respondent has then relied upon the

judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the cases of i] Dalip Singh –

vsState of Uttar Pradesh [(2010} 2 SCC 114], ii] Rameshwari Devi-vs

Nirmala Devi [(2011) 8 SCC 249, and iii] Kishore Samrite -vs- State of

Uttar Pradesh[(2013) 2 SCC 398], holding that, “It is very well settled

that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to

approach the Court and he is not entitled to be heard on merits and he

can be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

7] In my considered opinion, having regard to the above said

legal position spelt out by learned counsel for respondent, it would be

just and proper to hear C.A. No.2939 of 2017 filed by respondent

under Section 340 C.P.C. before deciding the Writ Petition.

8] Accordingly stand over to hearing on Civil Application

No.2939 of 2017 to 20.06.2018.

9] Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

 29

17.An affidavit, in support of instant application is filed herewith.

PRAYER
In the facts and the circumstances described herein above, it is most
humbly prayed that,
a. Under the provisions of section 195, 340 of Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 read with section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act
1971, an inquiry be constituted and plaintiffs be dealt in accordance
with law for the offence of perjury & Contempt of Courts Act 1971
by simultaneously setting aside the Ex Party Judgment & Decree
dated 26-08-2019 passed in Civil Suit No. RCS712A/2017 titled “M.
G. Parate Vs. Ankit Chansoriya”.
b. Pass any other order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit,
looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter.
c. Allow the instant application with cost.

Place: Bhopal Dr. Prashant Pathak

Date: 14-08-2023 (Counsel for Defendant)
 30

IN THE COURT OF ____ CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-1,

DISTRICT COURT, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Case No.- Civil Suit No. RCS712A/2017
M. G. Parate ....Plaintiff

Versus

Ankit Chansauriya ...Defendant

AFFIDAVIT
I Ankit Chansauriya, S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Chansauriya, R/o Sr.
HIG Flat No.3, Milan Enclave –II, Bhopal (M.P.) do hereby make oath
and state as under:-
1. That, I am fully conversant with the facts of the instant petition along
with condonation of delay application. The instant petition has been
drafted under my instructions. The contents of attached petition are
true to my knowledge as based on my personal information and
information's received from records of the case and believed to be
true.
2. That, I am producing the documents along with this petition for
perusal of Hon’ble Arbitrator. I fully rely on the same. Copy of such
documents is duly attested by me as true / certified or correct copy.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
paras 1 and 2 of the above affidavit are true to my personal
knowledge and belief.

Bhopal

Date DEPONENT
 31

VAKALATNAMA
IN THE COURT OF ____ CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-1,
DISTRICT COURT, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Case No.- Civil Suit No. RCS712A/2017
M. G. Parate ....Plaintiff

Versus

Ankit Chansauriya ...Defendant

I do hereby appoint, engage and authorize Advocate (s) named below to

appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceedings, which shall include
applications for restoration, setting aside of ex-parte orders, corrections,
modifications, review and recall of orders passed in these proceedings, in this
court or in any other court in which the same may be tried/ heard/proceeded
with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing court in respect of
proceedings arising from this case/proceedings as per agreed terms and
conditions and authorize him / them to sign and file pleadings, appeals, cross
objections, petitions, applications, affidavits or other documents as may be
deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution/ defence of the said case in all
its stages and also agree to ratify and confirm acts done by him / as if done by
me /us:

In witness whereof I do hereunto set my/ our hand to these presents, the
contents of which have been duly understood by me, on this 13th day of August
2023, at Bhopal.
Particulars (in block letters) of each party executing vakalatnama

S.No Name Registere e-mail Telepho Status Full

. &Father’s/Husban d addres ne no. in the signature/thu
d’s Name address s case mb impression
an
1 Ankit Sr. HIG - - Defenda
Chansauriya S/o Flat nt
Shri Ramesh No.3,
Chandra Milan
Chansauriya Enclave
–II,
Bhopal
(M.P.)

Accepted:
 32

Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate accepting vakalatnama

S. Full name Address for service e-mail address Telephone Full
No & no. signat
. Enrollment ure
no.
1 Dr. Rashmi 152/A, First Floor, Near drrashmi_adv@yahoo.co.in 9926793030
Pathak. Arun Dairy, Wright
Town, Jabalpur (M.P.)
MP/1390/20
482002
06
2 Pranay 152/A, First Floor, Near drrashmi_adv@yahoo.co.in 7000626501
Pathak Arun Dairy, Wright
Town, Jabalpur (M.P.)
MP/2396/20
482002
22
3 Dr. 152/A, First Floor, Near Prashantpathak2020@yaho 9424767283
Prashant Arun Dairy, Wright o.co.in
Pathak Town, Jabalpur (M.P.)
(MP/2671/ 482002
2018)

4 Uday Raj
Singh
Parmar
(MP/______
_/______)