The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a prima facie case and deliberate falsehood for initiating an inquiry into the offence of false evidence, as emphasized by the Supreme Court cases of Amarsang Nathaji Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, AIR 2017 and Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 571.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved with and dissatisfied by an order dated 5th October, 2018 passed in Notice of Motion No.823 of 2018 in Suit No.6117 of 2007 by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, the appellants have approached this Court under section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr. P.C’).

2. Facts germane for the decision of the appeal can be summarized thus:

The appellants have filed a civil suit in City Civil Court at Greater Mumbai against respondent No.1-M/s. Kishore Engineering Company for recovery of amount of Rs.75,600/- towards arrears of service charges @ Rs.2100/- per month for the period from November, 2004 to October, 2007. The appellants are legal heirs of Mr. Keshrichand B. Shah deceased Proprietor of M/s. Union Commercial Corporation which came to be dissolved on the demise of its Proprietor on 22nd January, 1980.

3. Respondent No.1 is a partnership firm and was a licencee of the subject premises which is situate on the third floor of Churchgate House 32, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. Appellant No.2 is the Director of M/s. Modern Products Private Limited. It is contended that respondent No.1 were liable to pay service charges @ Rs.2100/- per month to M/s. Union Commercial Corporation for the use of furniture and fixtures in the said licence premises. After the death of Mr. Keshrichand B. Shah, respondent No.1 had paid service charges to the appellants till October, 2004. Thereafter, they were in arrears of charges with effect from November, 2004 to October, 2007 amounting to Rs.75,600/-.

4. Despite due service upon respondent No.1 in June, 2008 by registered post, none appeared and, therefore, the suit proceeded further before this Court. Subsequently, the suit came to be transferred on the list of un-defended suits. The suit thereafter came to be transferred to the City Civil Court, Mumbai and proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.1. The appellants tendered their affidavit in lieu of evidence as well as written arguments on 6th May, 2015.

5. The judgment could not be delivered by the trial Court for a period of three years. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 came to be inducted as a defendant qua licenced premises by respondent No.1 which, according to the appellants, is a trespass and wrongful as well as illegal occupation of the subject premises by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 took out a Notice of Motion No.1925 of 2017 for setting aside the order dated 11th February, 2014 for closing the evidence and order dated 12th November, 2014 for proceeding ex-parte in the aforesaid suit and Notice of Motion No.1346 of 2018 for being joined as a party defendant in place and stead of respondent No.1.

6. It is the specific contention of the appellants that respondent No.3 in an affidavit dated May, 2017 in support of Notice of Motion No.1925 of 2017 and an affidavit dated 2nd April, 2018 in support of Notice of Motion No.1346 of 2018 deliberately and intentionally made a false statement on oath that respondent No.2-Company i.e Nak Engineering Private Limited Company is the successor of respondent No.1-firm i.e M/s. Kishore Engineering Company under part IX of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, contending that respondent No.1 which is a registered partnership firm bearing registration No.65205 registered with Registrar of Firms, Government of Maharashtra was converted and registered as respondent No.2 a Private Limited Company under the provisions of Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956.

7. It is contended that respondent No.2 has falsely contended that respondent No.2-company was not aware and had not received any notice about aforesaid matter, as even respondent No.1-firm was not served with any notice and, therefore they could not appear in the matter.

8. Admittedly, appellant No.1 has already initiated eviction proceedings i.e L.E. & C Suit No.139/158 of 2007 in the Small Causes Court of Mumbai against respondent No.1 as their licensee and respondents No.2 and 3 as the unauth