JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereafter also referred to as the 'Act'), read with Order 41 Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter for short referred to as the 'Code'), is for condonation of delay of 234 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Golaghat in Money Suit No. 18 of 2004, decreeing the same ex-parte against the applicants. 2. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Singh, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. N. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Goswami, Advocate for the opposite party. Mr. M. Khataniar, Advocate, has been heard for the applicant, Mr. N. Rabidas in Misc. Case No. 2520/2008. 3. The abridged facts are that the opposite party had instituted the aforementioned suit against the applicants as Defendants for Rs. 6,98,171/-, which was decreed ex-parte by the aforementioned judgment and decree. The Petitioners have pleaded that the summons in the suit were not served on them and that therefore, they were not aware of the institution and pendency thereof as well of the passing of the decree till 26.03.2006, when one of their employees came to learn about Money Execution Case No. 02 of 2006, in connection therewith. According to them, their employee had been to the Court pursuing some other matter. Thereafter, their representative submitted an application for the certified copies of the pleadings and the orders and thus became aware that the ex-parte decree had been obtained without service of summons on the applicants-Defendants. They have alleged manipulation of Court records contending that forged initial of the Headclerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate and seal thereof, had been shown affixed on the summons to represent service thereof. They asserted that the Headclerk of the Tea Estate was not an authorized employee of the applicant Company to receive any notice on its behalf in terms of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code. They accordingly, have contended that after obtaining the copies of the orders, they sought legal advice and thereafter, filed the aforementioned appeal. In the process a delay of 234 days has occurred. 4. They accordingly, have contended that after obtaining the copies of the orders, they sought legal advice and thereafter, filed the aforementioned appeal. In the process a delay of 234 days has occurred. 4. The opposite party in their affidavit, while denying the applicants' plea of want of knowledge of the summons thereof and the decree passed therein, have resisted that the summons on being issued by the Court and offered to the applicants, were refused on 17.02.2005 and 15.03.2005 and eventually, was served on and received by the applicants' Headclerk on 12.04.2005. They have stated that on 03.02.2005, the learned Court below issued summons to the applicants-Defendants posting the suit on 25.02.2005. According to the process server, he took the summons at the written address of the applicants-Defendants on 17.02.2005. As the Manager of the Tea Estate was on leave, the summons were tendered to its office assistant, who refused to accept the same. The learned trial Court on 25.02.2005 on perusing the report, reissued the summons fixing the suit on 21.03.2005. The report of the process server submitted in between disclose that he had taken the summons to the written address of the applicants-Defendants on 15.03.2005. On that day as well, the Manager of the applicants' Tea Estate was said to be on leave and the Head Assistant thereof on being tendered the summons refused to accept the same. The summons having been returned twice without service, the learned trial Court on 21.03.2005 ordered the opposite party-Plaintiff to take fresh steps for service of summons fixing 30.03.2005 as the next date of the suit. On that day, the opposite party-Plaintiff submitted an application seeking leave to effect substituted service of summons on the applicants-Defendants, which was allowed fixing 26.04.2005 for service report. As summons could be served thereafter on the Headclerk of the applicants-Defendants at the address provided on 12.04.2005, the process server accordingly submitted his report. The learned trial Court on being satisfied on the service of summons on the applicants-Defendants posted the suit for hearing on 18.05.2005. The applicants, it is asserted though served with the summons and were aware of the pendency of the suit, did neither appear on that day nor take steps on their behalf. The suit was accordingly fixed for ex-parte hearing on 08.06.2005. Accordingly, the opposite party-Plaintiff submitted their affidavit evidence on that day and eventually, the suit was decreed on 28.06.2005. The applicants, it is asserted though served with the summons and were aware of the pendency of the suit, did neither appear on that day nor take steps on their behalf. The suit was accordingly fixed for ex-parte hearing on 08.06.2005. Accordingly, the opposite party-Plaintiff submitted their affidavit evidence on that day and eventually, the suit was decreed on 28.06.2005. The opposite party has further averred that thereafter they instituted Money Execution Case No. 02 of 2006 on 20.02.2006 and in terms of the order of the learned executing Court, the Civil Nazir thereof, visited the Tea Estate of the applicants on 22.03.2006 to execute the warrant of attachment but could not do so as its Manager was absent. It has been alleged that the civil Nazir and the staff of the executing Court having visited the Tea Estate of the applicants on a subsequent date to execute the warrant of attachment, they were obstructed by them (applicants-Defendants). The opposite party-Plaintiffs have therefore, not only denied the correctness, but also have questioned the bona fide of the applicants-Defendants' plea in seeking condonation of delay on the ground of ignorance of the institution of the suit, non-service of summons thereof and unawareness of the decree in time. 5. In their reply-affidavit, the applicants while reiterating their assertions in the application, denied that the Civil Nazir or any other staff of the learned Court below had visited the Bogidhola Tea Estate on 22.03.2006 to execute the warrant of attachment. According to them, the Head clerk of the said Tea Estate did not receive any summons in the suit on behalf of the applicant Company and that when confronted with this fact he in his written reply dated 16.05.2006 affirmed the above. A copy of the said reply has been furnished with the rejoinder as Annexure-I. 6. Mr. Sahewalla, emphatically urged that summons in the suit not having been served on the applicants in terms of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code, there is no service thereof in law and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is inoperative, null and void. The summons in the suit not having been tendered to the applicants as required in law, there was no occasion for substituted service thereof, under the Code. The summons in the suit not having been tendered to the applicants as required in law, there was no occasion for substituted service thereof, under the Code. He reiterated that the summons had not been served on the Head clerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate as sought to be represented by the process server and that it was, therefore, a fraud perpetrated on the Court. The learned Senior Counsel, further urged that the Headclerk of the said Tea Estate was not authorized to receive any notice on behalf of the applicant Company and that therefore, in any view of the matter, there had been no service of summons in the suit on the applicants-Defendants. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Sahewalla contended that the judgment and order being otherwise cryptic and non-speaking, it is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The summons in the suit not having been served on the applicants-Defendants as required in law and they consequently being ignorant of the institution of the suit and the ex-parte decree, the delay in filing the accompanying appeal ought to be condoned for the sake of justice, he pleaded. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sahewalla, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. ShalimarRope Works Ltd. v. Abdul Hussain HM Hasan Bhai Rassiwala and Ors. AIR 1980 SC1163, M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam, (2001) 6 SCC 176 , Apangshu Mohan Lodh and Ors. v. State ofTripura and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 119 . 7. Sharply responding to the above, Mr. Dutta, maintained that it being apparent on the face of the records that the applicant Company at all relevant times had its registered office at Bogidhola Tea Estate, with the applicant No. 2, the Accounts Manager thereof, the plea that the summons had not been served in terms of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code, is plainly untenable. The learned Senior Counsel dismissed the written reply dated 16.05.2006 of the Head Clerk as a self serving document brought on record as an afterthought. The learned Senior Counsel dismissed the written reply dated 16.05.2006 of the Head Clerk as a self serving document brought on record as an afterthought. Referring to the Lower Court's records, the learned Senior Counsel urged that on a mere eye estimation, it is obvious that the signature appearing on the written reply dated 16.05.2006 and the initial of the Headclerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate appearing on the summons, acknowledging the receipt thereof, are in the hand of the one and the same person. Mr. Dutta, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the summons had been served inconformity with the prescription of Order 29 Rule 2 (b) of the Code and that all contentions justifying the condonation of delay, are unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned Counsel relied upon on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (supra), to reinforce his submissions. 8. The arguments were heard on 30.05.2007. This Court having noted the allegation of fraud and manipulation of Court records of the suit, had summoned the same to be adequately examined in the background of the contemporaneous facts. On a scrutiny of the records and on a consideration of the arguments made, this Court formed a view that in the interest of justice and for a complete and final adjudication of the issues raised, it would be advisable to obtain the opinion of a Government approved handwriting expert on the admitted signature of Mr. N. Rabidas, Head Clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate appearing in the letter dated 16.05.2006 (Annexure I to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the applicants) and the questioned signatures/initials oh the summons in the suit. Accordingly, an order to the said effect was passed on 11.06.2007. As a consequence, the records of the instant misc. case as well as that of the appeal of the suit were ordered to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General of the Court. The Registry of this Court having an interaction with the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati and having ascertained that a handwriting expert was available in the said establishment for his services to be availed as proposed; by order dated 16.05.2007, the admitted signature of Mr. The Registry of this Court having an interaction with the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati and having ascertained that a handwriting expert was available in the said establishment for his services to be availed as proposed; by order dated 16.05.2007, the admitted signature of Mr. N. Rabi Das, Head Clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate contained in the aforementioned letter and the questioned signatures/initials on the summon as above, were ordered to be examined by the Government approved handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati. Subsequent thereto, the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati by his letter dated 05.07.2007 intimated the Registry that the signature of Sri N. Rabidas appearing in the above letter, was not revelatory of the finer details of his handwriting qualities for examination and comparison and made a request to obtain his specimen signatures. As offered by the learned Senior Counsel, for the applicants, Sri N. Rabidas, in view of the orders of this Court, thereafter, on 17.09.2007 appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) and furnished his specimen handwritings and signatures to him, which were thereafter, duly forwarded to the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati. The Senior Scientific Officer, Questioned Documents Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam, Kahilipara by his opinion dated 04.10.2007 forwarded to the Registry of this Court confirmed that the admitted and questioned handwritings and signatures were of the same person. Along with the opinion, the reasons in support thereof, were also forwarded by the expert. 9. On receipt of the opinion and the papers accompanying the same, as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the parties, a copy thereof was furnished to them as permitted by this Court. In their additional-affidavit filed thereafter, the opposite party, inter alia, asserted that in face of the report of the process server and the expert opinion confirming that the summons in the suit had been duly received by the Head Clerk of the Tea Estate, the applicants having resorted to falsehood in a judicial proceeding, were liable to be prosecuted under Section 191 & 193 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apart from being proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 10. While the misc. 10. While the misc. case remained pending for further arguments in view of the intervening developments, an application was filed by Sri N. Rabidas, Head Clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate seeking impleadment therein. The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1635/2008. A counter was filed by the opposite party resisting the prayer. The learned Counsel for Sri N. Rabidas, later sought to withdraw this petition and on his prayer by order dated 02.07.2008, the misc. case was accordingly closed. The above notwithstanding, Mr. N. Rabidas submitted an application (M.C. No. 2520/2008) for being supplied the originals of the documents having a bearing on the report of the handwriting expert furnished by the Directorate of Forensic Science, Laboratory, Kahilipara, contending that to his belief there is an apparent error in the opinion, having the potential of causing irreparable loss to him. He averred that the documents were necessary so as to facilitate a fresh opinion and challenge to the earlier report. This prayer too was resisted by the opposite party through an affidavit, wherein, while endorsing the expert opinion, it was inter alia, averred that not only the applicant (Mr. N. Rabidas) not being a party to the proceedings was not entitled to the documents as sought for, his belated endeavour even after withdrawing his prayer for impleadment smacked of malafide. According to the opposite party, the prayer was rejectable on the ground of undue delay. 11. Mr. Khataniar, has urged that having regard to the adverse consequence likely to visit the applicant (in Misc. Case No. 2520/2008), he maybe furnished with a copy of all relevant documents, so as to enable him to obtain a second opinion and/or assail the opinion dated 04.10.2007 on record. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, per contra, has insisted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the version of the process server and the expert opinion demonstrably establish that the summons had been duly served on the applicants-Defendants and that the condonation of delay, as prayed for, if allowed, would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of law. 12. The learned Counsel for the applicants (in Misc. 12. The learned Counsel for the applicants (in Misc. Case No. 1819/2006), has reiterated that as at no point of time, Sri N. Rabidas, Head Clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate was authorized to receive any notice or summons meant for the applicant company, the signature appearing on the summons cannot be his and that the expert opinion to the contrary is patently flawed and ought not be acted upon. 13. The materials on record and the emulous arguments advanced, have been duly analyzed. Before embarking on to the thick of the controversy, it would be appropriate to deal with the prayer for furnishing documents, as made by the Head Clerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate. Noticeably, this application has been filed by him on 27.08.2008, after almost 10 months of the submission of the opinion of the handwriting expert on 04.10.2007. The application does not disclose any reason for this undue delay. Paragraph 5 of the application containing the averment that the applicant believes that the opinion suffers from an apparent error is a submission before this Court. The application does not disclose any reason for that impression of his. The assertion that if the documents, as sought for, are furnished, he would obtain a second opinion and would challenge the opinion dated 04.10.2007 is also not one of fact affirmed to be true to his knowledge. As alluded hereinabove, the applicant is not a party to the proceeding. Significantly, though, he had initially filed an application seeking impleadment, he recalled his prayer without obtaining any leave in that regard whatsoever. On a totality of the considerations as above, it is not considered appropriate to accede to the prayer made. The prayer, therefore, stands rejected. 13 A. It transpires from the original records of the suit that it was instituted against the applicants on 17.12.2004 and was registered as Money Suit No. 18 of2004. In the cause title the applicants-Defendants were described as hereunder: (1) M/s. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at Bogidhola Tea Estate P.O. Letekujan, Dist. - Golaghat, Assam. (2) Manager Bogidhola Tea Estate P.O. Letcaz, Dist. - Golaghat, Assam. 14. As is apparent from hereinabove, the registered office of the applicant Company was thus mentioned to be at the Bogidhola Tea Estate. - Golaghat, Assam. (2) Manager Bogidhola Tea Estate P.O. Letcaz, Dist. - Golaghat, Assam. 14. As is apparent from hereinabove, the registered office of the applicant Company was thus mentioned to be at the Bogidhola Tea Estate. Noticeably, in the cause title of the present application, the applicant No. 1, has been similarly described with its registered office at Bogidhola Tea Estate. The order sheet of the suit discloses that following the registration thereof, it was fixed on 10.01.2005. As the presiding officer was not in office on that date the suit was refixed on 02.02.2005, posting the suit for service report and written statement. On the next date i.e. 25.02.2005, the learned Court recorded that the summons had returned without service on the Defendants. On a perusal of the report of the process server, it directed that the summons be reissued fixing the suit on 21.03.2005 for service report and written statement. The report of the process server on 19.02.2005, indicates that he had visited the Bogidhola Tea Estate on 17.02.2005 and in absence of the Manager thereof, who was said to be on leave, tendered the summons to the clerk of the Tea Estate, who refused to accept the same. The clerk also declined to record his refusal. The process server, as the summons discloses, had affirmed the above on oath before the Sherestadar of the learned Court below on 19.02.2005 as well. 15. On 21.03.2005, the learned trial Court observed that the summons had returned unserved and on a perusal of the report of the process server, ordered the Plaintiffs to take steps for issuance thereof on the Defendants fixing 30.03.2005 for steps. The report of the process server dated 15.03.2005, is to the effect that he having visited the address in the summons, tendered the same to the Headclerk of the Tea Estate as the Manager, was absent but, the former refused to accept the same and also declined to endorse his refusal in writing. The summons disclose that the process server made an affirmation of the above before the Sherestadar of the learned trial Court on 19.03.2005. 16. On 30.03.2005, an application was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code, praying for leave for service of summons on the applicants-Defendants by substituted manner. The summons disclose that the process server made an affirmation of the above before the Sherestadar of the learned trial Court on 19.03.2005. 16. On 30.03.2005, an application was filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code, praying for leave for service of summons on the applicants-Defendants by substituted manner. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the earlier reports of the process server allowed the prayer, fixing 26.04.2005. On that day i.e. 26.04.2005, the learned trial Court recorded that the summons had been returned after service on the Defendants. Steps not having been taken on their behalf, it ordered that the suit be heard against them ex-parte fixing 18.05.2005. The opposite party/Plaintiff on the next date i.e. 18.05.2005 submitted their affidavit evidence under Order 18. The suit was finally decreed on 28.06.2005 on a consideration amongst others of the affidavit evidence of the Plaintiff. The report of the process server submitted on 12.04.2005, discloses that he had been to the address mentioned in the summons on that day but the Manager of the Tea Estate was not available and the Headclerk received the summons and in acknowledgement thereof, put his signature and seal. The endorsement of the Headclerk of Bogidhola Tea Estate as appearing on the summons is as hereunder: Received on 12.04.2005 Sd/-illegible D12.04.2005 3.45 P.M. Headclerk Bogidhola Tea Estate. The report to the above effect was affirmed by him before the Sherestader of the Court on 29.04.2005. 17. Significantly, the persistent stand of the applicants though is of non-service of summons, in their reply-affidavit, they have not categorically denied the visits of the process server at the registered office of the Company on 17.02.2005 and 15.03.2005. Having regard to the sequence of events and the reports of the process server on these two dates demonstrating continuous absence of the Manager of the Tea Estate and the obdurate non-cooperation of the Head Clerk thereof at its registered office at Bogidhola Tea Estate, the order permitting service of summons in the substituted manner cannot be faulted with. 18. It is not the case of the applicants that during the period involved, there was a Secretary or a Director or any other Principal Officer of the Company available at its registered office at Bogidhola Tea Estate to be served with the summons of the suit. 18. It is not the case of the applicants that during the period involved, there was a Secretary or a Director or any other Principal Officer of the Company available at its registered office at Bogidhola Tea Estate to be served with the summons of the suit. The written reply dated 16.05.2006, is suggestive of the fact that Mr. N. Rabidas, as the Head Clerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate had been receiving documents on behalf of the Company, as and when authorized. No mala fide as such has been alleged by the applicants, either against the process server or the Sherestadar of the learned Court below in particular. On a cumulative consideration of the materials on record and the revelations therefrom, I am constrained to hold that the plea of non-service of summons is untenable on facts. Under Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code summons on a Corporation may be served: a) on the Secretary, or any Director, or other Principal Officer of the corporation. or b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 19. The Apex Court in Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (supra), while expounding the essence of the above provision of the Code, held that the expression "by leaving it at the registered office" ought to be construed in the background of Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code. It ruled that if the serving person or bailiff is not able to serve the summons on the Secretary or Director or any other Principal Officer of the Corporation because either he refuses to sign the summons or is not to be found by the serving person even after due diligence, then he can leave the summons at its registered office and make a report to that effect. 20. The reports of the process server submitted on 19.02.2005 and 15.03.2005 disclose bona fide and resolute endeavours on his part to effect service of the summons on the Manager of the Tea Estate, but as he was continuously not available on the relevant date, the same were tendered to the Head clerk, who refused to receive the same. 20. The reports of the process server submitted on 19.02.2005 and 15.03.2005 disclose bona fide and resolute endeavours on his part to effect service of the summons on the Manager of the Tea Estate, but as he was continuously not available on the relevant date, the same were tendered to the Head clerk, who refused to receive the same. On 12.04.2005, however, as the report of the process server (supported by his affidavit) proclaims the summons were received by the Headclerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate. The above report, if accepted, the summons of the suit, in terms of Order 29 Rule 2 (b), have to be held to have been served in accordance therewith. The essentialities in this regard as propounded by the Apex Court in Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (supra), also stand complied. The fact situation does not suggest that the summons were left at the registered office of the applicant Company uncared for and unattended. 21. The opinion of the handwriting expert is unequivocal and categorical to the effect that the questioned and admitted writings and signatures are in the hand of the same person. The reasons accompanying the opinion disclose the variety of scientific tests applied and the emerging empirical data leading to this irresistible conclusion. These reasons are demonstrative of a meticulous, in depth and exhaustive process undertaken by the expert and the opinion expressed by him admits of no doubt or vacillation. The procedure as a whole adopted for obtaining the expert opinion has been with due notice and opportunity to the person concerned and can by no means be denounced to be unfair or non-transparent. There is no acceptable, cogent or convincing reason to repudiate and/or dismiss the opinion of the handwriting expert. 22. The Apex Court in Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 86 , while dwelling on the reliability of expert evidence, though had observed that the opinion of a hand writing expert is no less fallible than any other expert opinion, the same if relevant, may be worthy of acceptance, if there is internal or external evidence relating to the document in question supporting the view expressed by the expert. 23. 23. Their Lordship in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700 , ruled that the quality of an expert evidence would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded and that the Court as a rule of prudence, would have to look for corroboration before acting thereon. It was, further observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and a Court has to decide in each case on its own merits as to what weight it should attach to the opinion of the expert. The same view was reiterated in Alamgir v. State (NCT. Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 . As it is, the expert opinion in the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand, is largely of corroborative worth, the report of the process server supported by a solemn affirmation by him of service of summons on Sri N. Rabidas, Head clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate being by itself clinching in effect. Though a very grave allegation of tampering of Court records has been made by the applicants-Defendants, contending that the summons had not been served on the aforenamed Head Clerk of the Bogidhola Tea Estate, most intriguingly no effort has been made by them to impugn the opinion of the handwriting expert, though it has the effect of tarnishing and imperiling its credibility as a litigant before this Court as well as its corporate esteem besides exposing them to adverse legal consequences. The plea of non-service of summons, therefore, in this factual premise and on a totality of the considerations enumerated hereinabove, cannot be sustained. 24. While the legal proposition contained in the decision of the Apex Court in M.K. Prasad (supra), and Apangshu Mohan Lodh and Ors. (supra), on the liberal outlook to be adopted in appraising a cause proffered to explain any delay under Section 5 of the Act, does not admit of any reservation, in the attending facts and circumstances, in view of the above determination, the applicants-Defendants are not entitled to any equitable consideration. The application thus being without any merit fails and is dismissed. The adjudication on merits as recorded hereinabove, leaves this Court to decide as to the next course of action viz-a-viz the applicants and Mr. N. Rabidas, Head Clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate, their persistent assertions of non-service of summons having been proved to be untrue. 25. The application thus being without any merit fails and is dismissed. The adjudication on merits as recorded hereinabove, leaves this Court to decide as to the next course of action viz-a-viz the applicants and Mr. N. Rabidas, Head Clerk, Bogidhola Tea Estate, their persistent assertions of non-service of summons having been proved to be untrue. 25. While the Misc. Case No. 1819/2006, has been registered on an application filed by the applicants supported by an affidavit sworn by one Sri Sachindra Kumar Jha, S/o. Late Bholanath Jha, R/o. Sarumataria, Dispur, Guwahati in the capacity of the Accounts Manager of the applicant-company, the application in Misc. Case No. 2520/2008 is by Mr. Nanda Rabidas, S/o. Late Sundarlal Rabidas, R/o. Bogidhola Tea Estate, P.O. -Lete kujan, Dist. - Golaghat (admittedly the Head Clerk of Bogidhola Tea Estate at the relevant point of time). 26. Sri Sachindra Kumar Jha in his affidavit, accompanying the application for condonation of delay, has affirmed the statements made therein to be true to his knowledge. The averment of Mr. N. Rabidas to the effect that the expert opinion is apparently erroneous suggests a stand of his against service of summons in the suit on him by the process server. The materials on record discussed herein above, overwhelmingly negate and falsify the pleas of the aforementioned deponents before this Court. Both these persons have solemnly affirmed the averments made in the respective applications before the Commissioner of Affidavit of this Court on the dates as referred to in their affidavits. The Gauhati High Court Rules, inter alia, indicate that in administering oaths and affirmations to declarants, the Commissioner would be guided by the provisions of the Oaths Act, X of 1873 (presently the Oaths Act 1969). Section 8 of that act mandates that every person giving evidence on any subject before a Court or person authorized to administer oaths and affirmations shall be bound to state the truth on such subject. The form of the affirmation prescribed by the aforementioned Rules also accentuates the above essentiality. The findings to the contrary as determined hereinabove on the basis of the contemporaneous materials on record, therefore, evidently demonstrates that the statements made by these persons bearing on the non-service of summons in the suit to be untrue and thus repugnant to the letter and spirit of the prescription of Section 8 of the Oaths Act, 1969. 27. The findings to the contrary as determined hereinabove on the basis of the contemporaneous materials on record, therefore, evidently demonstrates that the statements made by these persons bearing on the non-service of summons in the suit to be untrue and thus repugnant to the letter and spirit of the prescription of Section 8 of the Oaths Act, 1969. 27. Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, postulates that whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. The punishment for false evidence is prescribed by Section 193 of the Code. Applying the ingredients of the offence of false evidence, as defined hereinabove, in the estimate of this Court prima facie, Sri Sachindra Kumar Jha and Sri Rabidas by their conduct of furnishing false evidence, are liable to be prosecuted under the aforementioned provisions of the Code. As the disclosures hereinabove, per se, in praesenti do not establish any complicity of any other person in-charge of the affairs of the applicant-company in this regard, no observation vis-a-vis them, by this Court, is being made at tins stage. However, in view of the above conclusion, it would be in the sustenance of the supremacy and majesty of the rule of law that an appropriate complaint be lodged with the jurisdictional police station by the Registrar General of this Court to initiate an investigation into the above offences against Sri Sachindra Kumar Jha and Sri N. Rabidas. The steps in this regard would be taken by this Registry forthwith. As the conduct and the actions of these persons also obviously have the potential of interfering with and/or obstructing the course of administration of justice by this Court, the Registrar General would also take necessary steps towards initiating a suo moto contempt proceeding against these persons under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 immediately. The Registrar General would lay the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the neeedful. 28. The Registrar General would lay the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the neeedful. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the applicant-company is liable to be saddled with exemplary cost, which is estimated at Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with its Registry within two (2) weeks herefrom. In the result, the Misc. Case No. 18191 2006 and Misc. Case No. 2520/2008 stand rejected with the above directions. The Registry would send down the lower Court records immediately.