Full Text
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv.
Through; None. ho™MR.JUSTICES.RAVIND^BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
This is a'^'Si^ly misconceived appeal. The plaintiff/applicant claims to be aggrieved by an order ofthe learned
Single Judge dismissing its application under Section 340 Cr.P.C..
The plaintiffs submissions inthis regard are thatthe suit, which was , dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, was not pursued by the plaintiffonthebasis ofthe falsepleadingsmadebythe defendantand on the basis that the defendant had withheld material documents from the Court. The plaintiffs further case was that it was supplied with the letter dated 31.03.1997 by the defendant - State Bank ofIndia in response to an order passed by the Central Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in 2013. The learned
2013:DHC:7291-DB Single Judge wasunpersuadedbythe plaintiffsrequestfor referr g die matterfor trial ongroundofallegedperjury. The impugnedorder observes that;-
-3 As is noted above, the present suit was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on
ORDER
21 II 2000 on account ofcontinuous non-appearam of the plaintiff for various dates. The instant application is apparently miscomeived bemg^ maintainable mainly because of the J becomefmctus officio. After the dismissal ofthe suit on November 21, 2000, nothing remainedpending in the suit. Though there was no time limit for filins an application under Section 340 LrPC L in the given circumstances, the delay is not only unexplained but isj^ ZLpoZlgpLlI of,he written statement, it would be seen that while the plaintiff had averred about its banker having examined the transactions between it and NAAZO Inc.USA and had given Us report to the defendant bank, the latter while making a general denial, had called upon the plaintiff to disclose the source ofthe information regarding the investigation. It is seen that it was not the specific denial ofthe defendant that no such investigation was got conducted as was averred by theplaintiffinpara 11 of the plaint. The plaintiff had reproduced the letter ofits banker addressed to the defendant inpara (11) ofplaint. It was in its special knowledge as to from where it got the information regarding such investigation and the letter ofits banker. Theplaintiff could have very well proceeded to prosecute its case by simply disclosing the source of information. Instead ofdoing all this, the plaintiff chose not to pursue its case and allowed the same to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Further, the plaintiff was well • ^ aware ofthefiling ofthe suit by the defendantagainst TiMLe'cLrtofNewYorY^^^^^^ defendant SBI or any ofits employees). ifany, against the decision ofthe St^reme Court ff Flew York, cannot be allowed by.. proceedings sought to be initiated under Section CrPC. The application being frivolous and misconceived is dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant endeavoured to reiterate the submissions inthe grounds ofappeal and relied upon the plaint as well as the written statement. Reliance has beenplaceduponthe documents which have been recently made available to the applicant. Having considered them, this Court is ofthe opinion that no interference is called for on the J exercise ofthe discretion by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is consequently dismissed. 1
S. RAVINDRAm^, J
AUGUST 06,2013 AJMnVAZIRI, J sn