Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1109 (AP)

P. Ram Reddy v. V. Ananda Rao

2008-12-29

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2008
COMMON ORDER :- This petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants under Order XL VII Rule 1 CPC seeking to review the order dated 6.9.2008 in CCCA MP No.360 of 2008 in CCCA MP NoA35 of 2008 in CCCA No.165 of 2008. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,47,733.56Ps., against the petitioners/ appellants. After full-fledged trial, the suit was decree-in-part for a sum of Rs.4,12,000/ - with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed appeal CCCA No.165 of 2008, which is pending. 4. By interim order dated 19.6.2008 in CCCAMP No.360 of 2008, this Court granted interim stay on the continuance of security furnished by the appellants/ defendants by way of deposit of title deeds before the trial Court, till the disposal of the appea1. The respondents/plaintiffs filed CCCAMP NoA35 of 2008 for vacating the said interim order inter alia alleging that the appellants/defendants have not only played fraud on them by obtaining cheques by misrepresentation, but also played fraud on the trial Court and produced a title deed bearing document No.1471/1980 by way of security without disclosing the fact that the said house property situate in Bagh Amberpet was already alienated on 21.7.2004 in favour of M/s. Vijetha Estates. After hearing both sides, this Court by an order dated 6.9.2008 modified the interim order of stay dated 19.6.2008 granted in CCCAMP No.360 of 2008 to the effect that there shall be interim stay of further proceedings on condition of the petitioners depositing 50% of the decretal amount and entire suit costs within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and further directing that in the event of appellant/defendants' failure to comply with the same, the interim stay shall automatically stand vacated. The respondents/plaintiffs were also directed to withdraw the amount without furnishing security. 5. Admittedly, the review petitioners, who are defendants/appellants, have not complied with the order dated 6.9.2008 and have not deposited 50% of the decretal amount and entire suit costs as directed therein, instead the present review application is filed seeking review of the order dated 6.9.2008. The respondents/plaintiffs were also directed to withdraw the amount without furnishing security. 5. Admittedly, the review petitioners, who are defendants/appellants, have not complied with the order dated 6.9.2008 and have not deposited 50% of the decretal amount and entire suit costs as directed therein, instead the present review application is filed seeking review of the order dated 6.9.2008. A perusal of the grounds mentioned in the application seeking review would disclose that the petitioner is once again canvassing the selfsame contentions raised by them in the earlier application. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the petitioners have been playing fraud at every stage before the trial Court and also on this Court by making false representation and obtained interim order of stay as if there was continuing security in force and suppressing the fact that the petitioners/ defendants filed IA No.147 of 2005 for releasing of the property from security and the said petition was also allowed by the trial Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants would contend that the petitioners filed IA No.219 of 2092 for return of the gift deed which was deposited as security and the same was allowed on 12.11.2002 to the knowledge of the respondents/plaintiffs. He would further contend that the said document was not taken return of from the Court and the same is still lying in the custody of the Court and, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the respondents/plaintiffs if the said security continues to be in force. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants/appellants is ex facie untenable. Even according to the petitioners/defendants, IA No.219 of 2002 filed by them was allowed on 12.11.2002 by the trial Court directing return of the gift deed releasing the same from security. It is also not disputed that the petitioners/ defendants sought substitution of the security with the sale deed but no orders were passed on the said application by the trial Court. Thus, by the date of decreeing the suit, the security offered by the defendants for the suit amount by depositing the gift deed bearing document No.l471/1980 was no longer in force, as the said gift deed was directed to be returned to the petitioners/defendants by the order dated 12.11.2002 in IA No.219 of 2002. Thus, by the date of decreeing the suit, the security offered by the defendants for the suit amount by depositing the gift deed bearing document No.l471/1980 was no longer in force, as the said gift deed was directed to be returned to the petitioners/defendants by the order dated 12.11.2002 in IA No.219 of 2002. The substitution of security proposed by the petitioners/defendants by producing the sale deed was not accepted by the trial Court and no orders were passed in that regard. Thus, as on the date the suit was decreed, there was no security for the suit amount in force. The fact that the petitioners/defendants have not physically taken return of the gift deed bearing document No.l471/1980 and the said document continued to remain in the custody of the Court is of no consequence in view of the judicial order passed on 12.11.2002 in IA No.219 of 2002 directing return of the said document to the petitioners/defendants duly releasing the same from security. Simply because the document is filed in Court or the document previously filed was not physically taken return of, does not amount to creating security. 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the application CCCAMP No.360 of 2008 for suspension of all further proceedings in pursuance of the decree and judgment, the defendants have suppressed the fact of filing IANo.219 of 2002 and the orders passed thereon on 12.11.2002 by the trial Court directing return of gift deed. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants have specifically averred in para 5 of the said affidavit that the said security is still in subsistence with the trial Court. In para 7 of the affidavit, it is reiterated by the petitioners/defendants that the said security which he furnished is still lying with the trial Court and he would undertake that he would not withdraw the same and this Court may accept continuation of the said security till disposal of the main appeal and if the said security is continued, no harm will be caused to anybody. The said affidavit was furnished by P. Rami Reddy, Appellant No. 1/Defendant No.1. He furnished the said affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the second appellant/defendant No.2, who is none else than his wife as duly authorized by her. The said affidavit was furnished by P. Rami Reddy, Appellant No. 1/Defendant No.1. He furnished the said affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the second appellant/defendant No.2, who is none else than his wife as duly authorized by her. Based on the averments contained in the said affidavit filed in CCCAMP No.360 of 2008, this Court granted interim order of stay on 19.6.2008 directing interim stay of further proceedings on the continuance of security furnished by the appellants/defendants by way of deposit of title deed before the trial Court. Subsequently, when the respondents/plaintiffs filed CCCAMP No.435 of 2008 seeking vacation of the interim stay, it came to light that by the date of passing the decree by the trial Court, there was no subsisting security. The application filed by the defendants in IA No.219 of 2002 for return of the title deed offered as security was allowed on 12.11.2002 and no order was passed by the trial Court accepting any other title deed as security by way of substitution. When that is so, the averments made by the first appellant/defendant No.1 in support of the stay application CCCAMP No.360 of 2008 as if there was subsisting security offered before the trial Court, are clearly false and such false averments are made obviously with intention to mislead the Court and for obtaining interim order of stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned decree and judgment. There is absolutely no reason or explanation for not referring to the factum of filing of IA No.219 of 2002 by the defendants and the order passed thereon by the trial Court on 12.11.2002, in the said affidavit filed by the first appellant/defendant No.1 in support of CCCAMP No.360 of 2008. The petitioners/ appellants/defendants have thus indulged both in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi by making a false statement in the affidavit to the effect that there was subsisting security and suppressing the material fact that the title deed offered as security was already released and was directed to be returned on an application IA No.2l9 of 2002 filed by the defendants. 9. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would invite attention of this Court to a decision of the Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: "Any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aim at striking a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at a stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fow1tain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statement and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law." The principles laid down in the above decision are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the conduct of the petitioners/appellants/defendants over the respondents in the contempt case' in swearing to a false affidavit in support of their application CCCAMP No.360 of 2008 certainly amounts to causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings and interference with the administration of justice and exposes the intention of the appellants in perverting the cause of justice. 10. 10. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to review the order dated 6.9.2008 passed by this Court in CCCA MP No.360 of 2008 in CCCA MP No.435 of 2008 in CCCA No.165 of 2008. The material on record would clearly disclose that the defendants/appellants, who are respondents in CC No.1326 of 2008 have prima facie committed contempt of this Court by swearing to a false affidavit filed in support of the application CCCA MP No.360 of2008. 11. In the result, the Review CMP No.666 of 2008 is dismissed. Admit CC No.1326 of 2008 and issue Form I notice to the respondents therein.