Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
DEEPIKA PRASHAR & ANR – Plaintiffs
Versus
SUMAN SINGH VIRK AND ANR – Defendants
CS(OS) 71 of 2015
Decided On : 04-08-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Bansal and Mr. Ateev Mathur, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jayant Mehta and Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advs.
The importance of the stage of admission/denial of documents in curbing trial and placing the onus of proof on the parties.
Headnote:
Amendment - Suit for partition, possession and recovery of damages - Family Settlement/Agreement - Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants denied the Family Settlement/Agreement, but later admitted their signatures. The court found the denial to be false and initiated proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The defendants filed affidavits explaining the circumstances of the signatures and tendered an unconditional apology.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendants' denial of the Family Settlement/Agreement to be false and initiated proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. It directed the Registrar General to file a complaint against the defendants for the offences committed.
Issues: The main issue was the false denial of the Family Settlement/Agreement by the defendants and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants' false denial of the document interfered with the administration of justice and initiated proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized the importance of the stage of admission/denial of documents in curtailing trial and placing the onus of proof on the parties.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registrar General to file a complaint against the defendants for the offences committed and scheduled the suit for further consideration.
IAs No.9140/2016 (of D-1 for amendment of written statement) & 9139/2016 (of D-2 for amendment of written statement)
1. Issue notice.
2. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the plaintiffs/non-applicants who states that a reply is required to be filed.
3. Reply be filed within four weeks.
4. Rejoinder thereto, if any be filed before the next date of hearing.
5. List on 8th November, 2016.
IAs No.468/2015 & 12501/2015 (both u/O 39 R-1&2 CPC)
6. The counsels for the parties state that they need further time to file the proposal for letting out of half of 4th Floor of property No.L-1/8, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi in terms of the order dated 20th July, 2016.
7. List on 8th November, 2016.
CS(OS) No.71/2015
8. In this suit for partition, possession and recovery of damages, on 19th July, 2016 after hearing arguments on the applications of the plaintiffs for interim relief and on the aspect of framing of issues, the following order was passed:
“1. The counsels have been heard on the applications as well as on the aspect of framing of issues.
2. The plaintiffs in the suit have inter alia referred to a Family Settlement/Agreement of November, 2012 purported to be signed by both the defendants. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate (Enrolment No.D/2565/2011) acting on behalf of the defendants has denied the signatures of the defendants on the said document.
3. I have asked the counsel on what basis he has denied the signatures.
4. He states that he has denied the same under instructions from the defendants.
5. On enquiry whether he had shown the signatures thereon to the defendants and whether he is willing to on behalf of the defendants take the consequences of the denial of signatures if the signatures are ultimately found to be the defendants, he states that he is not and rather, that he has not denied the signatures but the document.
6. The same demonstrates the casual attitude with which the important stage in the suit of admission/denial of documents is treated. The counsels, if choose to take the onerous task on themselves, ought to be ready to face the consequences.
7. The defendants as well as the plaintiffs to appear in person on 20th July, 2016.
8. The original document stated to be lying in sealed cover be also called.”
9. The defendants no.1&2 Smt. Suman Singh Virk and Ms. Sushma Choudhary appeared before this Court on 20th July, 2016 when the following order was passed:
“1. In pursuance to yesterday’s order the defendants no.1&2 Smt. Suman Singh Virk and Ms. Sushma Chaudhary are present in Court and their statements have been separately recorded and in which they have admitted their signatures on the document titled ‘Family Settlement/Agreement’ original whereof lying in sealed cover has been called from the Registry. Need to ask them any further question has not arisen since the said defendants in their written statements have falsely denied the said document and have not explained in what circumstance their signature appear on the document without their executing the same.
2. On the contrary, the defendants through counsel, as recorded in yesterday’s order, during admission/denial, denied the document and which denial was also false.
3. The aforesaid shows an offence within the meaning of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. to have been committed by the defendants in relation to the said proceedings.
4. It is deemed appropriate to issue notice to show cause to the defendants as to why prosecution should not be launched against them.
5. Notice is accepted by the defendants present in person.
6. Reply be filed within 10 days.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is also deemed appropriate that half of the 4th floor of property No.L-1/8, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi which is in possession of the defendants, be let out and rent thereof be deposited in the Court for the benefit of whosoever is ultimately found entitled thereto.
8. The framing of issues if any in the suit is also deferred.
9. The parties to on the next date of hearing also place the
