CM(M) 278/2020

Page 1 of 9

$~8(Appellate Side)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 278/2020, CM APPL. 8262/2020, CM APPL.

8263/2020 & CM APPL. 8264/2020

RASHI MISRA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Adv.

versus

B KALYANA RAMAN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. C. Rajaram & Ms. Shashi

Panwar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G E M E N T (O R A L)

%

26.04.2022

1.

This petition assails an order dated 07^th 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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001766

CM(M) 278/2020

Page 2 of 9

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 22^nd February, 2017,

followed by a rent agreement for a further period executed on 04^th

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

18^th 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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001766

CM(M) 278/2020

Page 3 of 9

settled inter alia by Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra¹and

Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal².

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 18^th

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. Aggarwal³, 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 inte