The court emphasized the importance of establishing the intentional motive behind averments and the need for expedience in the interest of justice when considering perjury applications.

VINOD K. SHARMA,J.

1. This application has been moved by the applicant / 4th defendant to punish the respondents for the acts of perjury committed by filing false affidavit, in support of O.A.No.58 of 2005.

2. The plaintiffs / non applicants filed a suit against defendants, wherein prayer was made for grant of interim injunction, restraining defendant from functioning as Director of the first plaintiff company, i.e. M/s.Citrex Products Ltd.

3. In the affidavit, it is pleaded that M/s.Citrex Products Ltd was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in 1992, which was acquired by the 6th Plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein and his family. The averment, on the face of it, is incorrect, as the company cannot be acquired, but with purchase of shares, the management of the Company can be taken over. The plaintiff no.1, thereafter acquired the assets of M/s.Citrex Products Ltd in an auction conducted by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC), including the land, measuring 30.8 acres.

4. The case of the applicant is that the 6th plaintiff was interested in purchasing only 5 acres of the property out of the 30.8 acres belonging to the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff was not willing to enter into part sale, therefore, an agreement was entered into with the applicant to sell excess 25.8 acres of land. Agreement was subsequently modified. The original document of the property 30.8 acres was handed over to the applicant, thereafter, loans of TIIC and others were cleared. It is the case of applicant that the sale was completed on 7th April, 1999, by registration of the Power of Attorney, which was an irrevocable Power of Attorney. This averment is again incorrect, as no sale can be concluded on the basis of Power of Attorney, as the sale deed can only be by way of registered conveyance.

5. The allegation of the applicant in this case is that in the suit filed, these averments have not been correctly depicted, thus, it is claimed that offence of perjury has been committed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that false averments have been made in the affidavit, therefore, the non applicants are liable to be prosecuted for perjury.

7. A reliancein support is placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ChandrapalSingh and others vs. Maharaj Singh and another, AIR 1982 SC 1238. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the application for perjury is maintainable during the pendency of the suit.

8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, was that the pleadings in O.A.No.58 of 2005 are contradictory and false in the plaint and other paragraphs and documents filed in O.A.No.58 of 2005, as the plaintiffs filed two sets of papers. It is contended that once it is proved that the pleadings in O.A.No.58 of 2005 were contradictory to other pleadings in different proceedings, no other conclusion than the one that non applicants are guilty of perjury, can be arrived at.

9. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that all the accused are to be prosecuted, and not only the person who filed the affidavit, as it was filed on behalf of all.

10. On consideration, I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is yet to be established as to whether the suit deserves to succeed or not. It is yet to be proved whether averments made are intentional with the motive to misleading the Court.

11. It is only in case that the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made in any offence under Section 195, which appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in that Court and after preliminary enquiry, a finding can be recorded and complaint made.

12. On consideration, this Court does not feel that it will be in the interest of justice to proceed with this application, as the case is at initial stage and c