KAMLA DEVI Vs. DHIAN CHAND
LAWS(HPH)-1991-8-15
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on August 07,1991

KAMLA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
DHIAN CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.MEHROTRA,J. - (1.) Smt. Kamla Devi has instituted this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking relief in respect of an order passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, on January 5, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1990.
(2.) In Civil Suit No. 205 of 1983, Smt, Kamla Devi and others v. Amar Nath and others, Dhian Chand, who is respondent in the present petition, appeared as defendants witness No 4, The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub -Judge 1st class (tl) Hamirpur, on March 30, 1988, Dhian Chand, according to the petitioner, perjured himself An application was made by Smt Kamla Devi, before the decision in the suit, under section 340, Cr P C with the prayer that a complaint be made against Dhian Chand for having committed an offence under section 193 of the I P. C. during the course of judicial proceeding. Dhian Chand filed a reply dated June 8, 1988 to it. The learned Sub -Judge did not advert to the alleged offence under section 193, I. P. C. having been committed by DW 4 Dhian Chand in the judgment by which he disposed of the suit. He discussed the evidence of DW 4 Dhian Chand in paragraph 9 of the judgment wherein he noticed that DW 4 Dhian Cband denied in the cross -examination that: ......due to the litigation/strained relations with the plaintiff, he is deposing falsely..."
(3.) The application under section 340, Cr. P. C. was disposed of by an order dated December 1, 1989. It is a detailed order running into several paragraphs. The conclusion recorded by the learned Judge is in the following words: "On the face of the certified copies of the judgment as referred above, it comes to light that respondent Dhian Chand has made false statements, before the Court with the knowledge or reasons to believe that the statement/versions were false. His evidence reveals that he has not only deposed falsely to answer one question but has deposed falsely while answering more than four questions which were put to him by the Counsel of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 205 of 1983. Thus, having regard to the documentary evidence, I am of the firm view that the statement given by respondent in the course of judicial proceedings on oath, the copy of which is Ex, P -7 is knowingly false and believed by the respondent to be such. Application is accordingly allowed and a separate complaint under section 193, I. P. C. is being filed against the respondent......";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.