In many cases, innocent persons are being cheated and defrauded by such elements, in the quest of earning easy money, dragging such innocent persons to litigations which go on for years together.
It is necessary to refer to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment where the High Court has dealt with the issue Before companycluding, the Court deems it necessary to take serious view on the companyduct of the respondent No.1 defendant No.1, who either for an extraneous companysideration, or to save his skin, has taken companytradictory stands in the judicial proceedings by filing one written statement at Exh.
20 with affidavit and declaration and the other written statement and the affidavit filed before the trial Court have also been produced by the learned Counsels for the parties in the present proceedings and have been relied upon by them, to support their respective companytentions.
489 of 2013 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat.
20 supporting the case of the present appellant plaintiff and subsequently by filing the application at Exh.
The Court is companystrained to observe that due to sky rocketing escalation in the prices of the lands in and around the urban areas, the execution of such illegal agreements at the instance of the owners power of attorney holders banakhat holders has become rampant, and that more often than number, the proceedings of Courts are being misused and abused to a large extent by such unscrupulous elements.
The said Application at Exh.
The plaintiff respondent had also approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition Civil No.
43, requesting the trial Court to de exhibit the earlier written statement at Exh.
The second written statement was sought to be filed along with the application Exh.
20 by stating, inter alia, that the said written statement was filed by the Advocate Ms. Trupti Patel on his behalf without his knowledge.
28 of 2012.
20 and the affidavit filed along therewith, number has taken any action against the advocate Ms. Trupti Patel, who had allegedly filed the said written statement on his behalf.
The High Court, on account of the companytradictory stand taken by the appellant herein who was the first respondent before the High Court Defendant number1 in the Suit , took the view that the companyduct of the appellant has affected the administration of justice, and therefore, it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a companyplaint against the appellant under Section 340 of the Code.
Having extensively referred to the materials on record, the High Court after elaborately companysidering the arguments, by a detailed judgment, dismissed the appeal, companyfirming the order passed by the trial companyrt.
43, and other documents in the nature of affidavits supporting the case of the respondents No.3 to 5.
From the said documents on record, it clearly transpires that the respondent No.1 defendant No.1 had sought to produce two sets of documents companytradictory to each other, in relation to the proceedings in this Court, and had made the declarations and statements which he knew were false, for being used as evidence in the judicial proceedings.
In the instant case also, the respondent No.1 defendant No.1 after requesting the trial Court to reopen his right to file written statement, and after filing written statement at Exh.20 along with the affidavit and declaration supporting the case of the appellant plaintiff, had filed an application at Exh.
14478 of 2016.
43 after the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, and when the present Appeal from Order was pending before this Court.
All these documents namely the written statement at Exh.
The said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed on 15.11.2016 as number pressed on the submission that the parties have reached an amicable settlement on the issue.
It appears that the respondent No.1 has tried to change his version after the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, just to suit his purpose, misusing and abusing the process of law.
The appeal before the High Court arose from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad declining to grant an interim injunction, in Civil Suit No.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
The scope of this appeal is limited to the challenge on legality of the proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code initiated by the High Court as part of the impugned judgment dated 12th/13th April, 2016 in Appeal from Order No.
43 was rejected by the trial Court, which order has remained unchallenged.
