- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.2.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. The suit was filed by the petitioners for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that the property in dispute had been inherited by them. The suit was filed on 26.3.2007. Prior to the filing of the application in question, earlier also one application for amendment of the plaint was filed for changing the description of the property in the suit, which was allowed on 30.4.2010. The evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs was closed on 16.11.2011. The application was filed subsequent thereto, i.e., on 6.12.2011 seeking to amend the plaint by taking a plea that in fact the property in dispute was purchased by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners-plaintiffs. In the written statement, the stand taken by the respondents-defendants was that they had purchased the property. Apparently, the petitioners-plaintiffs had led evidence and closed the same supporting their case on a false plea that the property had been inherited by them from their predecessors-in-interest. It is sought to be claimed that they came to know about the mistake when the evidence was being led and their counsel informed them that the revenue record is not supporting their case regarding the property being ancestral.
(2.) Apparently, the suit was filed taking a false plea without even going through the documents as to whether the petitioners will make out their case on the basis of documents sought to be referred to in the plaint originally filed. Permitting the petitioners to amend the plaint at this stage would mean not only delay in disposal of the suit but also wastage of more than five years court's time already spent in proceeding with the case filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs on the basis of an admitted false plea taken in the plaint, though which is sought to be justified as bonafide.
(3.) Similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmla Devi and others, 2011 8 SCC 249, wherein it was observed that it has became a matter of routine practice for the parties to the litigation to make false averments, file false documents and continue with the proceedings for the years together and then take a plea of mistake of fact; which needs to be discouraged. Relevant paragraphs thereof have been reproduced hereunder: 47. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 5 SCC 668 this court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts. 48. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer. 49. The learned amicus articulated common man's general impression about litigation in following words: Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road. 50. This court in Swaran Singh observed as under: 36.........Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 51. In a recent judgment in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of M.P., 2008 8 SCC 34 this court has shown great concern about the alarming proportion of perjury cases in our country.;