The judgment establishes the principle that deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance justifies the initiation of contempt proceedings and prosecution for perjury.

1. Respondents no. 2 and 3 herein (original plaintiffs) filed application under Order 39, rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure before 5th Jt Civil Judge, JD, Nagpur in Regular CS No. 21 of 2001 against present appellant no. 1 (who was added as defendant no. 7) for breach of injunction order dated 28.8.2001 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur whereby defendants were directed not to erect any permanent structure in the common space around their flats and to maintain status-quo as on that date till decision of suit and they were also directed to allow the plaintiff and his agents to approach the plaintiff’s water meter for repairing it if and when necessary. Present appellant no. 1 being subsequent purchaser of the property was added as defendant no. 7 to the suit on 16.1.2003. He was thus aware of the order passed by the said appellate Court. Inspite of that, according to plaintiffs, taking advantage of summer vacations, appellant no. 1 demolished chamber and drainage as also caused diversion of water course and thereby committed breach of injunction order.

2. Appellant no.1/defendant no. 7 filed reply and averred that the order of injunction was not passed in his presence and it was passed when he was not party to the suit. He further averred that the order of injunction was never communicated to him. He submitted that after purchasing the suit flat, he carried out certain repairs and whitewash to suit his need. He claimed that plaintiff cannot have better title to his property and prayed for dismissal of the application.

3. Learned trial Judge held that the order of injunction was equally binding on defendant no. 7/appellant and he became aware of the said order on being added as party-defendant to the suit. Considering the admissions on the part of defendant no. 7, learned trial Judge allowed application vide order dated 13.10.2003 and thereby directed appellant no.1 to restore chamber and drainage in the same condition as they were formerly existing. At the same time, learned trial Judge issued notice to defendant no. 7/ appellant no.1 to show cause as to why he should not be sent to civil prison for breach of injunction.

4. The said order dated 13.10.2003 was carried in appeal by present appellant no.1 before 15th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur vide MCA No. 28 of 2004. Effect and operation of the order dated 13.10.2003 was initially stayed by the appellate Court vide order dated 17.1.2004. In the supporting affidavit, defendant no. 7 and his counsel made false and distorted statements about the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 77 of 2003. Writ Petition No. 77 of 2003 was not in fact dismissed, but a statement was made by appellant/defendant no. 7 and his counsel that the same was dismissed. As a matter of fact, Writ Petition No. 77 of 2003 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17th February 2003 with some modifications, as directed. Thus, according to original plaintiffs regarding order passed by 8th Adhoc ADJ on 17.1.2004, the defendant no. 7 and his counsel had made false statements. Plaintiffs further pointed out to the Appellate Court that statement made in paragraph 3 by appellant (defendant no. 7) in his application for stay to the effect that “...... substituted the order that permanent structure shall be erected....” was also false. Plaintiffs filed application (MCA No. 104 of 2004) for review of the order dated 17.1.2004. Even then defendant no. 7 and his counsel is not correct those statements and reiterated the same stand. Respondents, therefore, filed application before the Appellate Court for making reference to the High Court for taking action against present appellants for contempt of Court punishable under Sections 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act on 19.3.2003. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Criminal Contempt Petition No. 10 of 2004 on 12th October 2004 granted liberty to present respondents no. 2 and 3 to initiate proce