Thamiraparani Investmetns P v. V.Rajendran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.01.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR O.S.A.No.164 of 2012 Thamiraparani Investments Private Limited, rep. by its Director P.Ram Mohan, D-1, Srishti Crescendo, No.24, Desika Road, Mylapore, Chenai-600 004.

... Appellant/Defendant Vs 1.V.Rajendran 2.R.Padma 3.R.Satish Raj 4.Rajeswari Sathish 5.R.Ganesh Raj 6.Usha Selvarathinam 7.P.Selvarathinam 8.Jeya 9.K.Mahalingaswamy 10.N.Ayyamperumal ... Respondents/Plaintiffs Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.01.2012 made in Application No.6909 of 2010 in C.S.No.51 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

Appln.No.6909 of 2010 : Application praying this court to take action and punish the Respondents for the acts of prejury committed with regard to the averments in the affidavit sworn in support of O.A.No.58 of 2005 in C.S.No.51 of 2005. For Appellant : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondents : No Appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The learned Single Judge, on an application filed by the original fourth defendant alleging perjury to prosecute on account of the averments in the plaint, has found that only if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the pleadings are made intentionally with a motive to mislead the Court, the question of perjury would arise and an enquiry should be made in any offence at that stage. Since the suit was at the initial stage and the correctness of the motive was yet to be seen, the application was dismissed.

2. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the stage at which the application was filed was not appropriate to come to the conclusion whether the prosecution for perjury should take place or not and that would depend when the Court ultimately takes a call in the matter.

3. The appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bbr To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.R.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.1083 +2cc's to Mr.Prakash Goklaney, Advocate, S.R.No.1067 O.S.A.No.164 of 2012 VGI(CO) CA(18/01/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/