The main legal point established in the judgment is that the manipulation and fabrication of documents in judicial proceedings constitute perjury and affect the administration of justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Judges Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Rules of High Court, 1994 r/w Section 195 and 340 of CrpC to issue suitable direction to the officer of this Court to file criminal complaint against the plaintiff/Azizuk Karim before the appropriate forum for the offence of perjury, production of forged and fabricated document in judicial proceedings and commission of an offence punishable under Section 463, 464, 420, 468, 471 and 465 of Indian Penal Code.)

The instant application reflects the manner in which devious minds engage the legal procedure for achieving their illegal end. These kind of litigants have no qualms in repeatedly derailing the administration of justice. In this endeavour they are also actively assisted by legal counsel. A brief background of the facts of the instant case is necessary in order to comprehend the above observation of this Court.

Narration of facts:

2. The respondent herein was inducted as a tenant in respect of a portion (Ground floor premises) of the property bearing Old No.129, New Door No.98, Coral Merchant Street (Pavalakkara Street) Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai - 1, measuring an extent of 2163 Sq.ft. The respondent was inducted on the basis of a tenancy agreement dated 15.12.2012. The monthly rental was fixed at a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- was received from him.

3. In February 2019, the landlord, namely, the 1st applicant herein had called upon the respondent to vacate the premises as he had committed a default in the payment of the monthly rentals and had also not taken any steps to renew the agreement. Pursuant to this request the respondent herein sought three months time to vacate the premises and agreed to handover vacant possession of the property.

4. Having so agreed, the 1st applicant herein was in for a rude shock when he received summons in the suit O.S.No.1385 of 2019 from the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by the respondent for a bare injunction restraining the 1st applicant from evicting the respondent from the premises except by due process of law. The schedule of properties given in the said suit was the premises bearing Door No.129, New Door No.98, Coral Merchant Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai - 1. On receiving summons and perusing the plaint, the 1st applicant came to learn that the respondent had contended that on 18.02.2019 he was threatened with dispossession by the 1st applicant who had come to the property along with some rowdy elements. The respondent had also stated that once again on 01.03.2019 he had been threatened by the 1st applicant who came along with some rowdy elements and they had tried to attack the respondent and damage the articles. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the suit in question.

5. While the suit was pending, on 29.07.2019 the respondent herein would represent to the Court that an ex parte decree for specific performance had been obtained by him in the instant suit. It was only then that the Applicants herein had come to know that the instant suit has been filed on the basis of a fabricated sale agreement dated 02.06.2014 which is claimed to have been executed by the applicants and the defendants 1 to 5 and 8. This agreement is a rank forgery which was evident from the fact that the 8th defendant, P.S.Padma had died on 29.12.1989 and the 5th defendant, Gurunathan had died on 30.01.2010. Both these persons were dead even prior to the execution of the agreement. However, a perusal of the agreement and the receipts filed by the respondent as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 during the ex parte evidence, would show that they have been signed by these dead persons as well. The receipts are dated 10.02.2014, 03.03.2014, 05.04.2014, 10.05.2014 and 02.06.2014.

6. That apart, even before the ex parte decree in this suit the 4th defendant had died on 12.07.2018. On verifying the records, the applicants found that the address of the applicants and the other defendants given