The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural compliance and adherence to principles of natural justice in adjudicating applications under the CPC and CrPC.

JUDGEMENT

1. This petition assails an order dated 07th December, 2019, passed in CS 81/2019, (B Kalyana Raman vs. Rashi Mishra), by the learned Additional District Judge ('the learned ADJ'), in which the present petitioner was the defendant and the present respondent was the plaintiff.

2. The impugned order adjudicates three applications preferred by the petitioner as the defendant before the learned ADJ, under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr PC). Additionally, the impugned order strikes off the defence of the petitioner, purportedly in exercise of jurisdiction under the proviso to Order XV-A(1) of the CPC.

3. The petitioner is before this Court assailing all four decisions as contained in the impugned order.

4. CS 81/2019 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises of the respondent. The respondent's case in the suit was that the petitioner was the respondent's tenant vide lease deed dated 22nd February, 2017, followed by a rent agreement for a further period executed on 04th January, 2018. On the petitioner failing to vacate the premises despite the expiry of tenancy as so extended, the respondent filed CS 81/2019 against the petitioner seeking possession, permanent injunction and damages.

5. In the said application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, submitting that the respondent had concealed a lease deed dated 18th November, 2018, and that, if the lease deed were taken into account, the plaint would be liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned ADJ has held that an application under Order VII Rule 11, could be decided only on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint, and averments contained in the written statement or documents that the defendant sought to place on record could not be taken into account while adjudicating an application under Order VII, Rule 11. This position is unexceptional, as it stands settled inter alia by Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174.

7. As such, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the said decision of the learned ADJ in so far as it dismisses the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

Application under Section 340, Cr PC

8. The petitioner additionally moved an application under Section 340, CrPC, for initiation of proceedings against the respondent for perjury, for having suppressed the aforesaid lease deed dated 18th November, 2018. The learned ADJ has rejected this application as pre-mature, opining that the issue of perjury could not be decided at an initial stage and would require leading of evidence. For this purpose, the learned ADJ has relied on the judgment of this Court in Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. v. S.K. Aggarwal, MANU/DE/2261/2009 which holds that, till the lis between the parties is adjudicated, the Court could not arrive at a finding of falsehood.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that there is no infirmity in this decision of the learned ADJ as the aspect of perjury could be decided only after evidence is led.

10. As such, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the aforesaid decision of the learned ADJ on the application of the petitioner under Section 340, CrPC.

Application under Section 151, CPC

11. The third application of the petitioner, which was rejected by the learned ADJ, was for waiver of costs of Rs. 3,000/-, earlier imposed by the learned ADJ vide order dated 21st October, 2019. The learned ADJ, has, in rejecting the said application, noted that the costs were imposed for delay in filing the written statement. He has observed that, though summons of the suit had been served on the petitioner on 11th May, 2019, the written statement was filed, 'after more than five months on 14.