Heard Shri P. P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1990 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Agra in Civil Suit No.26 of 1982 (Ramesh Chandra and others vs. State of U.P. And others) as well as judgment and decree dated 12.8.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Agra in Civil Appeal No.201 of 1995 along with an application (C.M.A.No.138816 of 2005) for condonation of delay filed in support of the affidavit.
In the affidavit filed in support of an application for condonation of delay swayed by Shri Devi Dayal, posted as Assistant Commandant, 15th Bn. P.A.C., Agra, the reasons/grounds for condoning the delay as taken are quoted herein below :-
"That after receiving the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2004 on 2.9.2004 the appellants requested the District Government (Civil) on 6.9.2004 to give his opinion about the matter.
That thereafter on 23.9.2004 and 14.10.2004 information was given to the police Headquarter, U.P., Allahabad.
That the District Magistrate counsel (Civil), Agra wrote a letter dated 25.10.2004 to the commandant, 15th Bn. P.A.C. Agra requesting him to sent competent person along with entire records relating to the abovenoted case so that needful may be done. In pursuance of the letter dated 25.10.2004 the commandant wrote letter to the District Magistrate, Agra requesting for the same purpose."
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant on the point in issue, the position which emerges out is that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, plea has been taken that certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2004 passed by the appellate court was available to the appellants on 2.9.2004, thereafter, steps taken to get the requisite permission from the authority concerned and after getting the same the present appeal has been filed. The said averment is not true as from the perusal of the facts on record, the position which emerges out is that an application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1990 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Agra in Civil Suit No.26 of 1982 (Ramesh Chandra and others vs. State of U.P. And others) as well as judgment and decree dated 12.8.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Agra in Civil Appeal No.201 of 1995 have been applied on behalf of the appellants on 4.4.2005, the same was prepared and delivered to learned counsel for the appellants (Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, D.G.C. (Civil), Agra..
Moreover, from the perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, no reason has been given by the appellants that why necessity has been arisen to get the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the courts below on 4.4.2005 when the same was already available to appellants on 2.9.2004, rather on the point in issue affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is silent, which goes to show that false facts has been deliberately and wilfully stated in the said affidavit with oblique, motive and purpose.
Filling of false affidavit in a matter before the court in a proceeding is nothing but amounts to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings. 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 party concerned 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 of by such acts or conduct on the part of the party to the litigant. 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 affidavit, renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with Act. (See Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Anr. (2000) 2 SCC 367).
As in the present case, while filing the second appeal, the false affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appellants have not come with clean hands before the temple of justice, but the same is amounts to fraud on the part of the appellant. So, in the present case, the appellants cannot derive any benefit in their favour in the case of Yeshwant Deorao v. Walchand Ramchand AIR 1951 SC 16, the Apex Court held as follows :-
"Fraudulent motive or design is not capable of direct proof in most cases ; it can only be inferred. In the very nature of things, fraud is secret in its origin or inception and in the means adopted for its success. Each circumstances by itself may not mean much, but taking all of them together, they may reveal a fraudulent or dishonest plan."
Thus, I do not find good and sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in approaching this Court at belated stage. Hence, the application for condonation of delay filed in support of the affidavit is liable to be rejected in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 after placing reliance on the earlier judgment passed in the case of Shivdas Vs. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274 the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph 6 has held as under :-
"The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustice, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. (See also Naresh Kumar Vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others, JT 2010 (7) SC 77 and Kanaiyalal Lal Chand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 2 SCC 782) In view of the abovesaid facts as well as settled proposition of law, I do not find any good ground and sufficient reasons to entertain the present appeal by condoning the delay.
For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
Order Date :- 28.8.2014 Mahesh