NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 111396 OF 2018  

IN

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2757 OF 2018

IN

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 782 OF 2017

IN

S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 12501 OF 2017

Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.  …Respondents

IN THE MATTER OF

M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. …Applicant/                   Respondent No. 2  

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. :

This  application  has  been  filed  by  M/S.  New  Era

Fabrics  Ltd.  (hereinafter  ‘Applicant’)  under  Section  340  read

1

with  Section  195(1)(b)  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code

(hereinafter ‘CrPC’) seeking institution of criminal proceedings

against Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri (hereinafter ‘Respondent

No.  3’)  in  Civil  Appeal  No.  6344/2017  (reconverted  to  S.L.P.

(Civil) No. 12501 of 2017) for giving false evidence.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 Twelve members of the Jhaveri family, including the

petitioners herein and Respondent Nos.  3-5,  claim to be the

lessors of suit premises being C.S. No. 560 and 561, final Plot

No. 268, T.P.S. III of Mahim Division, Ward No. 6/North 5546 (1-

1A) situated at Mogul Lane, Tulsi Pipe Road, known as Senapati

Bapat  Marg,  Mahim,  Mumbai-400016.  The  Applicant  is  a

monthly  tenant  of  the  suit  premises.  The  tenancy  of  the

Applicant  was  terminated  by  notice  dated  11.2.2009,  and

subsequently, in March 2009, the aforesaid twelve members of

the Jhaveri family filed a suit (hereinafter ‘1st suit’) before the

Court of Small Causes, Mumbai for possession and injunction

against Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Respondent

No. 1’), the Applicant, and some other parties. In August 2010,

Respondent No.  1  also filed an eviction suit  (hereinafter  ‘2nd

2

suit’)  before  the  Court  of  Small  Causes,  Mumbai  against

members of the Jhaveri family, including the aforesaid twelve

members, contending that they were merely sub-lessees, and

that Respondent No. 1 had become the owner of the property

as it had purchased the suit property from the original owners.  

2.2 On  12.08.2016,  the  petitioners  herein,  being  six

members  of  the  Jhaveri  family,  filed  an  application  under

Section 24 of the Code of Civil  Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’)

before the High Court of Bombay, seeking clubbing together of

the aforesaid suits so that they could be heard together.  

2.3 This  application  seeking  clubbing  together  of  suits

was  opposed  by  Respondent  Nos.  3-5  vide  reply  dated

22.12.2016 on the ground that the petitioners were acting in

collusion with a third party, namely, Gnani Investment Pvt. Ltd.

to  render  the  1st suit  infructuous.  In  this  reply,  Respondent

Nos.3-5  pointed  out  that  this  Court,  vide  order  dated

22.07.2016 in SLP (Civil) No. 10337/2013, had directed that the

trial in the 1st suit had to be concluded by 27.01.2017. It was

submitted that significant progress had been made in the trial

3

of the 1st suit, whereas even issues had not been framed in the

2nd suit.

2.4 Vide  order  dated  23.12.2016,  the  High  Court  of

Bombay  dismissed  the  application  filed  by  the  petitioners,

accepting  the submissions  made by  Respondent  Nos.  3-5.  It

was against  this  order  that  Special  Leave Petition (Civil)  No.

12501/2017 came to be filed by the petitioners.

2.5 Vide order dated 04.05.2017, this Court granted the

relief  of  clubbing  the  suits  together.  The  relief  was  granted

without  notice  being  issued  to  Respondent  Nos.3-5,  as  this

Court  was  of  the  opinion  that  issuing  notice  to  them would

merely delay the matter. However, Respondent Nos.3-5 were

given  the  liberty  to  approach  this  Court  if  they  had  any

objections to the order.

2.6 Utilising the liberty granted to him, Respondent No.3

filed M.A. No. 782 of 2017, seeking modification of the order

dated 04.05.2017 and de-tagging of the two suits. In the said

application, Respondent No.3 stated that while the preliminary

issue of jurisdiction had already been decided by the Court of

Small Causes in the 1st suit, even issues had not been framed in

4

the 2nd suit, and that therefore, the two suits should not have

been tagged.

2.7 The Applicant  in  its  reply to  M.A.  No.  782 of  2017

contended that both the suits were at similar  stages, as the

only  difference was that  the preliminary  issue of  jurisdiction

had been decided by the Court of Small Causes in the 1st suit,

and that even this issue was pending consideration before this

Court.  Significantly,  it  was  contended  that  issues  had  been

framed by the Court of Small Causes in the 2nd suit also.

2.8 In his rejoinder, Respondent No.3 admitted that due

to an oversight, it had erroneously stated that issues had not

been framed in the 2nd suit. Further, Respondent No. 3 tendered

an  unconditional  apology  for  this  oversight,  and  sought  to

provide  an  explanation  as  to  why  the  oversight  had  taken

place.  

2.9 On 12.01.2018,  this Court allowed M.A.  No.  782 of

2017, recalled the order dated 04.05.2017, and restored SLP

(Civil) No. 12501/2017 to its original file. Thereafter, this Court

heard  the  matter  afresh,  and  dismissed  SLP  (Civil)  No.

12501/2017.

5

2.10 On  07.08.2018,  the  Applicant  filed  the  present

application  under  Section  340  of  the  CrPC,  claiming  that

Respondent No. 3 had made incorrect statements in M.A. No.

782 of  2017 regarding  the stages  of  the  two suits  with  the

intent  of  misleading  this  Court  in  order  to  get  a  favourable

order.

3. Heard  learned  senior  counsel  Shri  Vikas  Singh

appearing  on  behalf  of  the  Applicant,  and  learned  senior

counsel  Shri  Amit  Sibal  appearing  on  behalf  of  Respondent

No.3.

4. Shri  Vikas  Singh  contended  that  Respondent  No.3

had deliberately stated in M.A. 782 of 2017 that issues had not

been  framed  in  the  2nd suit,  although  this  was  factually

incorrect.  It  was  submitted  that  this  factually  incorrect

statement was made only with a view to mislead the court and

obtain a favourable order,  and that this clearly amounted to

perjury,  therefore  requiring  initiation  of  criminal  proceedings

against Respondent No.3

5. Per contra, Shri Sibal argued that Respondent No. 3,

in  his  rejoinder,  had  sought  to  explain  the  reasons  for  the

6

oversight that had led to incorrect submissions being made in

M.A. No. 782 of 2017. It was pointed out that after the issues

had been framed in the 2nd suit vide order dated 03.04.2014,

the  Applicant  itself  had  filed  an  application  on  28.10.2014

seeking  framing,  recasting,  and  deletion  of  issues  on  the

ground that the issues that had been framed vide order dated

03.04.2014 were not in consonance with tenancy law. It was

thus submitted that due to the pendency of this application,

seeking  recasting  and  deletion  of  framed  issues  as  well  as

framing  of  certain  new  issues,  Respondent  No.  3  had

committed the inadvertent error of stating that the issues had

not  been framed in  the  2nd suit.  Furthermore,  as  mentioned

earlier,  Respondent  No.  3  also  tendered  an  unconditional

apology for the error.

6. We find that the rejoinder filed by Respondent No. 3

contained a clear admission to the effect that in M.A. 782 of

2017, he had stated certain facts which were not accurate. This

Court was thus apprised of the fact that such submissions were

not to be relied upon. Further, we are also of the view that the

explanation offered by Respondent No. 3 in his rejoinder seems

7

reasonable  inasmuch  as  the  pendency  of  the  application

seeking  framing, recasting, and deletion of issues, filed by the

Applicant,  could have caused some confusion in the mind of

Respondent No. 3 regarding the stage at which the 2nd suit was

pending. In light of this, it would be difficult to conclude that

Respondent No. 3 had deliberately tried to mislead this Court to

obtain  a  favourable  finding or  order,  more particularly  when

Respondent No. 3 has tendered an unconditional apology in his

rejoinder.

7. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no

prima  facie case  is  made  out  against  Respondent  No.  3

requiring  initiation  of  criminal  proceedings  against  him.

Consequently, the present application filed by the Applicant is

dismissed.

……………………………………………J.    [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

……………………………………………J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 03, 2020

8