Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2405
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J
Smt. Ranjana Berry – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bhupinder Kaur – Respondent
MP 7133/2024
Prakahar Shukla,
Allegations of tampering with court records must be substantiated with affidavits; otherwise, they cannot be entertained.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Miscellaneous petition challenging the dismissal of an application alleging tampering with court records - The court found no supporting affidavit for the allegations made, rendering the application untenable - The judge's record is conclusive and cannot be contradicted without proper procedure - The explanation provided by the concerned judge was deemed acceptable. (Paras 1, 8, 12)
(B) Judicial Proceedings - The integrity of court records is paramount, and any allegations of tampering must be substantiated with evidence, including affidavits, to be considered by the court. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application alleging discrepancies in deposition sheets and tampering with court records, claiming that the signatures on the deposition sheets did not match and that an exhibit was marked twice.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the application, emphasizing the need for affidavits to support allegations of tampering and reaffirming the conclusiveness of the judge's record.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations of tampering with court records were substantiated and whether the trial court's dismissal of the application was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without an affidavit supporting the allegations, the application could not be entertained, and the integrity of the judge's record is conclusive.
Result: Miscellaneous petition dismissed with costs.
ORDER
This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by 16th Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhopal, in RCSA no.800900/2012 whereby application under Section 151 CPC dated 02.09.2024 filed on behalf of the defendant, has been dismissed.
2. Facts in short are that challenging the veracity of Court proceedings and of defendant’s deposition recorded on 24.11.2023, an application was filed on behalf of the defendant under illegible signature of a counsel, whose name according to order sheet of the Court, is Mr. Sanchay Nema, with the allegations that the deposition sheets dated 24.11.2023 are in fact different from the deposition sheets of the Court, because even prima facie the signatures done by the defendant on the deposition sheets dated 16.08.2023 do not match with the signatures done on the deposition sheets dated 24.11.2023. With a view to bolster the allegations made in the application, learned counsel submits that paragraphs 38 and 41 of defendant’s deposition show that one and the same exhibit (Ex.P/45) has been marked twice on two documents and the document filed before this Court at page no.49 which is also marked as Ex.P/45, bears signature of presiding officer Mr. Alok Mishra, who was not posted on 24.11.2023 as 21st Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal but undisputedly Ms. Tanushree Shivhare was posted as Judge of the said Court. He submits that deposition sheets of 24.11.2023 do not contain signature of Presiding Officer Ms. Tanushree Shivhare. He submits that on first date of hearing itself explanation from concerning judge was called by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025 and explanation dtd.30.01.2025 submitted by the Judge Ms. Tanushree Shivhare is not acceptable, especially the explanation given vide paragraphs f. and g., which are reproduced as under:-
“f. During cross-examination of defendant's witness, in paragraph no. 38, the counsel on behalf of the plaintiff asked a question with regard to a signature on the copy of receipt (which was already on record of the file but not exhibited, presented by the plaintiff on 02.05.2013 before the then XXI Civil Judge, Shri. Alok Mishra). This document was marked as Exhibit P-45 on 24.11.2023, but since it already had signature of the Presiding officer XXI Civil Judge, Shri Alok Mishra before marking the Exhibit no., it was mistakenly left without signature by me.
g. Later post lunch, during the cross-examination of defendant's witness, in paragraph no. 41, the counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff asked a question with regard to entry dated 18 October on page no. 21 of the passbook of current account of Reckmost Engineering pertaining to receiving an amount of Rs. 35,000/- (this passbook was the other of the two new documents produced by the plaintiff's counsel himself for the purpose of cross- examination on 24.11.2023). Due to an inadvertent error, this document was again marked as Exhibit P-45 and was duly signed by me after marking the exhibit.”
3. Supporting the averments made in application under Section 151 CPC, learned counsel submits that in view of objections taken in the application, the depositions sheets/proceedings dated 24.11.2023 deserve to be excluded from the record and necessary action be taken against the erring persons/officials.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the misc. petition with the further submissions that unnecessary and false allegations have been made in the application in respect of the proceedings of the Court even without filing any affidavit of the defendant or her counsel in support of the allegations.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Record shows that originally the defendant-Smt. Ranjana Berry (DW-1) on 04.12.2012 submitted her chief examination on affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, thereupon cross-examination was commenced on 16.08.2023, which could not complete on that dat
