[2026:RJ-JP:7718]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8541/2025 Uttam Chand Jain S/o Late Shanti Lal Jain, Aged About 61 Years, R/o B-80, First Floor, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302018 ----Petitioner/Defendant No.1/Applicant Versus Anil Jain S/o Late Shanti Lal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 227, Nemi Sagar Colony, Queens Road, Jaipur (Raj.)-302021 ----Respondent/Plaintiff/Non-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg with Ms. Pranjal Mundhra Ms. Saumya Mangal Ms. Disha Jain.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the inordinate delay in deciding the application filed by the defendant- petitioner bearing No. Civil Misc (C) Application No. 10/2021, in Civil Suit No. 485/2018, pending before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, under Section 340 read with 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") against the plaintiff-respondent.

2. Shorn of the facts, two separate civil suits bearing Nos. 485/2018 and 189/2018 under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC were preferred by plaintiff-respondent, seeking declaration, possession and temporary injunction with respect to the separate portion of property situated at C-30, Adarsh Nagar, Raja Park, Jaipur.

3. In Civil Suit No.485/2018, the defendant-petitioner preferred an application dated 01.03.2021, under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC against the plaintiff-respondent on account of serious contradictions and false evidence being tendered by him in the testimony and cross-examination. On the said application, a reply was also filed by the respondent.

4. However, the learned Trial Court had on several occasions ordered to put up the said application along with the main civil suit but the same is not being heard and has been kept in abeyance for a period of more than four years and had not decided the same till date.

5. Thereafter, on 21.09.2023, defendant No.3 Pooran Chand Jeswani in Civil Suit No.189/2018, also preferred an application under Section 340 CrPC along with an application under Section 151 CPC to separately hear the application under Section 340 CrPC and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible.

6. Aggrieved by the inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding the application preferred by the defendant-petitioner under Section 340 CrPC, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court has kept the application under Section 340 CrPC read with Section 195 CrPC, 1973, pending adjudication for last four years without any plausible reason and merely on the premise that the same shall be heard along with the main civil suit. However, the learned Trial Court even after repeated requests and formal applications has not conducted hearing on the said application.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were serious contradictions and false evidences, tendered by the respondent in the present suit which could have gravely impact the adjudication of the present suit. Furthermore, a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and cannot be heard on merits and has to be rejected at the threshold. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is a settled position of law that an application under Section 340 CrPC must be decided first before adjudicating the main suit proceedings as in cases where the pleadings are based on falsehood, the very foundation of litigation would stand vitiated.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the mandate provided under Section 340 CrPC stands unequivocal i.e. in cases where there is prima facie evidence of perjury, the Court is expected to conduct inquiry and decide the application prior to adjudication of the suit. Thus, the approach of learned Trial Court in not