Dayanand v. Sh Ram Singh

Delhi High Court · 20 Dec 2013 · 2013:DHC:7422
Manmohan Singh
CM(M) 1138/2013
2013:DHC:7422
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to decide a Section 340 Cr.P.C. application without evidence, affirming the necessity of following prescribed procedural safeguards.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Order delivered on: December 20. 2013
CM(M) 1138/2013 & C.M. No.l6763/20I3
DAYANAND Petitioner Tlirougli Mr.Raj K. Yadav, Adv.
VERSUS
SH RAM SINGH (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS Respondents
Tlirough None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 14^' August, 2013 in view of non-compliance of Section 340 Cr.P.C.

2. By impugned order dated 14^^ August, 2013 the learned Trial Court observed that even though the matter was listed for evidence on contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, the plaintiff insists on addressing arguments on his appHcation under Section 340 Cr.PC. it was held that at this junction, no orders can be passed on the application of the plaintiff under Section 340 Cr.PC since it is without evidence and thus it camiot be established which party is at the falsehood. This issue thus had to be decided at the final stage ofthe main suit.

3. The petitioner (who is the plaintiff in the learned Trial Court was insisting to pass an order either dismissing the application to allow the same under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and asked that the application camiot be CM(M) No. 1138/20J[3] Page 1 of[2] 2013:DHC:7422 kept pending. I agree with the learned Trial Court that the prescribed procedure cannot be ignored while dealing with such application. The petitioner cannot be allowed to force the Court to decide his application in the manner he wishes.

4. Thus, the present petition is without any merit. The same is dismissed.

JUDGE DECEMBER 20, 2013