Holding

The High Court's orders are unsustainable as they were passed without affording a hearing to the affected parties, violating natural justice; therefore, the orders are set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

Summary

M/s Hanu Motel Pvt. Ltd. entered into a loan agreement with U.P. Financial Corporation which was later cancelled and a demand notice issued. The company filed a suit in 2001, naming itself and its director Ram Raj Singh as plaintiffs, and obtained an interim injunction. During the appeal, the company removed Ram Raj Singh as director and authorized Avdesh Kumar to prosecute; Ram Raj Singh then claimed he had not signed the plaint and alleged fraud, seeking deletion of his name, while Avdesh Kumar was impleaded as a plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the appeal and the suit without hearing the company or Avdesh Kumar, relying solely on Ram Raj Singh's allegations, and ordered a CBI investigation and later quashed criminal proceedings under IPC 193. The Supreme Court held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice by deciding without affording a hearing to the affected parties and by recalling the impleadment order without due process. Consequently, it set aside both High Court orders and remanded the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal with an opportunity of hearing to all parties. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the underlying loan dispute.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the appeal and suit without hearing the company and Avdesh Kumar violated the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court could validly recall the order of impleadment of Avdesh Kumar without affording him a hearing.
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Raj Singh should stand.
Whether the matter should be remitted to the High Court for fresh determination after observing procedural fairness.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLIII, s. Order XXXIX
Companies Act, 1956
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 193

Subjects

natural justiceaudi alteram partemimpleadmentprocedural fairnesscivil procedureCBI investigationcriminal complaintloan agreementlimitationappealremand

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1207

.,. MIS. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS . A
v.
U.P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6280-6281 of 2008 etc.)
OCTOBER 24, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
j
Natural Justice - Non-observance of- In legal proceed-
ings - Suit by Company through Director - Appeal against
interlocutory order in the suit - During pendency of appeal, c
Director was removed and new Director authorized to pursue
legal proceedings - New Director impleaded in the appeal as
well as in suit~ Old Director filing application denying having
filed the suit and alleging fraud·- High Court without hearing
the Company and the new Director observed that the old Di-
D
rector did not file the suit - CBI inquiry directed - Review pe-
"' titian dismissed by High Court holding that the new Director
was wrongly impleaded - CBI report stated that no fraud was
played and the old Director had filed the suit - Initiation of
criminal proceedings against old Director by Registrar Gen:..
era/ of High Court - Proceedings quashed by High Court - E
On appeal, held: High Court order not sustainable on the
ground of non-observance of natural justice - The appeal was
decided on the basis of one sided version without hearing the
Company and the new Director, despite the fact that he was
-, impleaded as party - Recalling of impleadment order at the F
stage of Review was wrong - Matters remitted to High Court
for fresh consideration on merit.
Appellant No.1-Company and respondent No.1-Fi-
nancial Corporation entered into a loan agreement and
G
cancelled the agreement and issued demand notice to
... the company seeking payment of balance amount.
Appenant-C.ompany filed a suit against the can.cella-
tion of loan and the demand .notice through respondent
1207 H

i ..
1208 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

A No. 2 who .was the ·then Director of the Company. The court "
granted interim injunction. The Corporation filed appeal
against the interlocutory order. During pendency of the ap-
peal, the Company passed a resolution to remove respon-
dent No.2 as Director of the Company and authorized ap-
B pellant No.2 to prosecute the suit and other proceedings.
Respondent No. 2 filed an application seeking to
delete his name from the array of parties. He denied that \
he had filed the suit and alleged fraud having been com-
mitted. Applications of appellant No. 2 for inipleadment in
C the suit and the appeal were allowed.
High Court finally disposed of the appeal by order
dated 6.5.2003 by hearing only the respondents and held
that respondent No. 2 did not file .the suit and fraud had
been played to abuse the process of law. It directed CBI
0
to investigate into the mater.
Company filed Review Petition against the order in
the appeal. High Court dismissed the same by order dated
28.5.2003, observing that since the Court held that respon-
E dent No.2 did not file the suit, thus no suit existed in the
eyes of law and hence the appeal also did not survive. It
also held that the court should not have impleaded ap-
pellant No. 2. Hence the appeal Nos. 6280-81 of 2008.
Pursuant to direct!on of the Court, CBI took up the
F investigation. In its Report it stated that the evidence
proved that respondent No. 2 had filed the suit as the Di-
rector of the appellantqCompany. In the light of the find-
ings of CBI, Re.gistrar General of High Court filed a com-
plaint against respondent No. 2 u/s. 193 IPC. Re~pondent
G No. 2 filed an application in the appeal and sought quash-
ing of the criminal proceedings. High Court quashed the
same; Hence the appeal No. 6282 of 2008.
I

Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
H
M/S. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. U.P. 1209
FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. & ANR.

)' · HELD: 1.1 The orders passed by the High Court can- A
not be sustained. It is clear that the suit was filed by two
plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 was the Company and plaintiff No.
2 was shown to be a Director. High Court decided the
matter without hearing appellant No. 1-Company and ap-
pellant No. 2 whose impleadment application was allowed B
by the High Court and the High Court was, therefore,
; aware that he was very much on record. The High Court
virtually decided the matter on the basis of one sided ver-
·sion of Plaintiff No. 2 who had alleged that fraud was com-
mitted against him. [Para 19] (1215-C to F) C
1.2 The High Court followed an easy path unknown
to law when it rejected. Review Petition by recalling the
order of impleadment of appellant No. 2 virtually rectify-
ing the order passed on May 6, 2003. The High Court ought
0
to have extended an opportunity of hearing before pass-
ing order dated May 6, 2003 as also dated May 28, 2003 to
appellant No.1- Company as well as to appellant No.2.
[Para 23] (1217-C, .D)
2. Since this Court has allowed the appeals filed by E
the appellants in the connected matters and set aside the
order passed by the High Court by remitting the matter to
the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law
after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties,
the order of High Court quashing the criminal proceed- F
ings is also liable to be set aside. [Para 35] (1219-F, G) ·
3. In view of the report of CBI and prima facie case
found against respondent No. 2, in the investigation un-
dertaken, it would not be appropriate to state· anything G
one way or the other. Since both the orders passed by
~ the High Court are liable to be set aside only on the ground
of non- observance of natural justice, the matter should
be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in ac-
cordance with law. [Para 24] (1217-E, F)
H
1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS , [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. '>(

6280-6281 of 2008
From the Judgment and Order dated 6/5/2003 and 28/5/
. 2003 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Appeal
Agaisnt Order No. 120 of 2002 and Civil Review Application
B No. 2796 of 2003 in Appeal Agaisnt Order No. 120 of 2002
respectively
WITH
, ~ \
I

~
C.A. No. 6282 of 2008
c ~
V.A. Mehta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kumar
Choudhary, Rucha A. Mayee and Sanjay Visen for the Appel- I
Ian ts. 'f-

D
Kailash Vasudev, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ajay Kr. Bhatia, A.K.
Soni and Shrish Kumar Misra for the Respondents.
.b \

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~
F
C.K. THAKKER, J. I
E
Civil Appeal No. 6280-6281 of 2008 @ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 10554-55 of 2003
I.
I
1. Leave granted. F
2. Both these appeals have been instituted· by the appeb. ..
)
('

lants who are aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed ~
F by the High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital dated May 06, 2003 ~-

in Appeal against Order No. 120 of 2002 and an order dated ....
;..
May 28, 2003 in Civil Review Application No. 2796 of 2003 in
Appeal against Order NO. 120 of 2002. t
G
3. Facts in brief of the case are that appellant No. 1 M/s
Hanu Motel Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Com-
panies Act, 1956 ('Company' for short) and is engaged in the It"
business of hotel and hospitality and having its Head Office at
Lucknow. Appellant No. 2 Avdesh Kumar is a Director of the
appellant No. 1-Company. Respondent No. 1, Uttar Pradesh
H "'
M/S. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. U.P. 1211
FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. & ANR. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

Financial Corporation ('Corporation' for short) is a Corpora- A
tion constituted under the State Financial Corporations Act,,
1956. Respondent No. 2, Ram Raj Singh has been joined as
contesting respondent who was the Director of appellant No.1-
Company, but who had resigned from the said position subse-
quently. B
4. From the record it appears that there was an agreeJ
ment between appellant No.1- Company and respondent No.
1-Corporation dated May 10, 1991 whereunder loan was given
by the Corporation to the Company for the purpose of its busi-
ness. It was the case of the Corporation that though substan-: C
tial amount was paid by the Corporation, the Company did not
abide by the terms and conditions and the Corporation was
constrained to cancel agreement on October 31, 1991. The 1

Corporation also issued demand notice on August 29, 2000.
Under the said notice, a demand was made by the Corpora- D
tion from the appellant No. 1-Company to pay an amount of
Rs.185.20 lakhs. The appellant No.1-Company, therefore, filed
a suit being Civil Suit No. 111 of 2001 in the Court of Civil
Judge (SeniOr Division), Haridwar on·April 28, 2001. It was a
suit for declaration that the recovery sought by the Corporation E
was barred by time since cause of action had arisen in 1991
and proceedings were not initiated for a long time. It was also
the case of the Company that cancellation of loan agreement
by the Corporation was ex parte, unilateral and hence illegal.
5. It may be stated that the suit was filed by two plaintiffs. I F
Plaintiff No. 1 was the Company (appellant No. 1 herein) and
plaintiff No. 2 was Ram Raj Singh (respondent No. 2 herein)
who is a practising Advocate. It was stated in the plaint that
plaintiff No. 1 was a Company and plaintiff No. 2 was a Direc-
tor who was authorized to file a suit on behalf of the Company- G 1

plaintiff No.1. On January 19, 2002 an application was filed by
the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
for interim injunction restraining the Corporation from selling hotel
or property of plaintiff No. 1-Company. On February 20, 2002, H
1212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A application was allowed and the defendants were restrained
from selling the land and building of the plaintiffs.
1--
6. Being aggrieved by the order of injunction passed by I

the trial Court, the Corporation preferred an appeal being Ap- I
I
peal a'gainst Order No. 120of2002 under Order XLlll Rule 1 of
B the Code on May 31, 2002. On June 01, 2002, the High Court ~
after hearing the parties directed the Company to deposit an
amount of Rs. Fifty lakhs in the Court within 45 days. The matter ~ t,-
was ordered to be listed on July 26, 2002. The company filed I-
Miscellaneous Application No. 4347 of 2002 on July 10, 2002 r
C. contending that the appeal filed by the Corporation was barred
by limitation. The High Court directed the Corporation to file t-

reply. t
~

7. On August 02, 2002·, according to the appellants, Board '
t=:
of Directors -0f Company passed a resolution to remove re- !
D
spondent No. 2 - Ram Raj Singh as Director of the Company.
By the same resolution, it.authorized appellant No. 2 Avdesh ;.-

Kumar to prosecute the suit and other proceedings.
8. Immediately thereafter on August 05, 2002, respondent
E No. 2 Ram Raj Singh instituted Miscellaneous Application No.
4839 of 2002 in Appeal against Order No. 120 of 2002 in the
High Court of Uttranchal to delete his name from .the array of
parties in .the appeal alleging therein that he was not aware of
any suit being filed through him and he had not signed the plaint.
F It was alleged by him that fraud was committed by showing him
as plaintiff NQ. 2 and filing suit for and on behalf ~f the Com-
pany. It was a case of impersonation. He, therefore, prayed for
deletion of his name and to take appropriate proceedings for
unpardonable fraud committed by the persons. responsible.
G 9. On August 09, 2002, an impleadment application was
made by appellant No. 2 Avdesh Kumar to be joined as plaintiff
in the suit. Likewise, on Decehiber 11, 2002, he made a simi- ..
lar application for impleadment in Appeal against Order No.
120 of 2002 being Director of the Company as also guarantor
H for payment of loan. The application was allowed on Decem-

i,
M/S. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. U.P. 1213
FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. & ANR. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

")I ber 14, 2002 by the High Court and he was ordered to be im... A
pleaded.
10. The High Court then heard the Appeal against Order
and by the impugned order dated May 06, 2003 disposed of
the appeal after hearing the learned counsel for the Corporar
tion and the learned counsel for Ram Raj Singh. It observed B
that according to Ram Raj Singh, he had not signed the plaint
and yet he was shown as plaintiff No.2. Thus, the suit was filed
by resorting to impersonation. The Court, therefore, held that
since Ram Raj Singh did not sign the plaint, he could not be
said to be plaintiff No. 2. As such the plaint could not be said to C
~e signed by an Authorized Officer and suit by plaintiff No. 1~
Company also did not survive and was liable to be dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Even the suit had become infructuous. According to the High
Court, no such suit could have been instituted. D
11. The High Court also observed that fraud had been
played to abuse the process of law. Central Bureau of Investi-
gation (CBI) was, therefore, ordered to register a case against
the Company and its Directors and to ihvestigate the matter as
to who had played fraud and to prosecute the persons as found E
guilty in investigation.

12. It was the case of the Company that no hearing was .
afforded either to the Company or to Avdesh Kumar who was
already impleaded in the appeal. The order of the High Court F
1
was in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. Re-
view application was, therefore, filed by the appellants herein.
The High Court, however, dismissed the Review Application by
the second impugned order dated May 28, 2003 inter alia ob-
serving that when the Court held that no suit could have been G
instituted by the Company-plaintiff No. 1 in view of the case of
the plaintiff No. 2 Ram Raj Singh that he had not signed the
plaint and was never plaintiff No. 2. There was thus no suit in '
the eye of law and the appeal also did not survive. According to
the Court, therefore, no order of impleadment of Avdesh Kumar
H
1214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2008] 14 S.C.R.

A could have been passed on December 14, 2002. Hence, that
order was also set aside by the High Court dismissing review
petition.
13. Both the above orders of the High Court of Uttaranchal
have been challenged by the appellant in the present appeals.
B
14. Notice was issued pursuant to which the parties ap-
peared. Affidavits and further affidavits were also filed. ~.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
c 16. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously
contended that the orders passed by the High Court are totally
illegal, unlawful and violative of basic principles of natural jus-
tice. It was submitted that order dated May 06, 2003 was passed
without hearing the affected parties, i.e. appellant No. 1-Com-
D pany and appellant No. 2 Avdesh Kumar ·whose impleadment
application was allowed as early as in December, 2002. Though
the impugned order was passed after about five months of
impleadment of appellant No.2, no hearing was afforded to any
of the appellants. It was also submitted that the High Court was
wholly wrong· in recalling the order of impleadment of Avdesh
E Kumar passed in December, 2002. It was submitted that when
the Appeal against Order was heard and decided on May 06,
2003, Avdesh Kumar was very much a party-respondent and
yet the High Court did not think it fit to give an opportunity of
hearing to him and decided the appeal which had caused seri-
f ous prejudice to the appellants. It was strenuously urged that
certain observations were made by the High Court only on the
basis of ipse dixit allegations of Ram Raj Singh that fraud was
committed against him and he had not signed the plaint. The
counsel submitted that CBI has investigated the matter and has
G submitted the report wherein it was expressly observed that Ram
Raj Singh had signed the plaint and had filed a suit. It was, there-
fore, submitted that the orders passed by the High Court de-
serve to be set aside by remitting the matter for fresh disposal
in accordance with law.
H )
~
MIS. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. U.P. 1215.
FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. & ANR. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

17. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Ram Raj A
. Singh stated that the High Court had passed the order and there
· is no infirmity therein.
18. The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that
substantial amount is due and payable by the Company and in
the fight between two groups, the Corporation is deprived of its 8
legitil!Jate dues.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in
our opinion, the orders passed by the High Court cannot be
sustained. It is clear that the·suit was filed by two plaintiffs as c
early as in April, 2001. Plaintiff No. 1 was the Company and
plaintiff No. 2 - Ram Raj Singh was shown to be a Director. An
application under Order XXXIX of the Code was filed wherein
interim relief was granted. Appeal against Order was filed by
the Corporation and only in August, 2002, a Miscellaneous Ap-
0
plication was filed by Ram Raj Singh to delete his name alleg-
ing that he had not singed the plaint and he was fraudulently
described and shown as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit. It is unfortu-
nate that the High Court decided the matter without hearing the
present appellants, i.e. appellant No. 1-Company and appel-
lant No. 2-Avdesh Kumar whose impleadment application was E
allowed on December 14, 2002 by the High Court and the High
Court was, therefore, aware that he was very much on record.
The learned counsel for the appellants is also right in contend-
ing that the High Court virtually decided the matter on the basis
of one sided version of Ram Raj Singh who had alleged that P
fraud was committed against him. This is clear from what is
stated by the High Court.
20. The High Court while disposing of the appeal inter alia
observed;
G
"The plaintiff No.2 in the suit is practicing advocate of the
Lucknow Courts and is present in the Court. He made
stat~ment at Bar that he did not file any suit. The suit was
filed by resorting to impersonation. He did not make
signatures on the plaint and the affidavit. The plaintiff No.1 H·
1216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

A has not been .arrayed through any of its Directors. The '
'
plaintiff No.2 has also not been mentioned in the array of
parties to be the Director of the Company. In view of the
statement made by Sri Ram Raj that he ha snot filed the
suit in question and he is not prosecuting the suit, the suit
B is liable to be dismissed on behalf of plaintiff No.2 and the
suit also cannot proceed on behalf of plaintiff No.1, as the
Company ha snot been arrayed as party through any '\
Director. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently the impugned order has merged in the order
c of dismissal of suit, which has rendered the appeal as
infructuous. The appeal is dismissed accordingly as having "'
become infructuous".
21. Granting liberty to Ram Raj Singh to take legal recourse
against those persons who had played fraud upon him. the Court
D proceeded to state;
~
"However, Shri Ram Raj, advocate is at liberty to take
legal recourse against those persons who have played
fraud upon him. Sri Ram Raj, advocate and learned counsel
for the appellant have submitted that a fraud has been
E played to abuse the process of law, therefore, this Court
may order the CBI to register a case against company
and its Directors and' investigate as to who has played
fraud. Having regard to the seriousness of the fraud
played, we direct the S.P., CBI to investigate the matter
F personally and prosecute the person who is found guilty in
investigation. Record of the Civil Suit No.111of2001 shall
be kept in sealed cover and shall be handed over during
the course of investigation to S.P., CBI".
22. The counsel submitted that had an opportunity been
G
afforded to the appellants, they could have shown that it was
not correct that Ram Raj Singh had not signed the plaint or fraud
had been committed by the Company or any officer of the
Company. According to the learned counsel, on the contrary,
CBI made the inquiry and submitted the report wherein it was
H
MIS. HANU MOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. U.P. 1217
FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. & ANR. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

specifically observed that Ram Raj Singh was not right when A
he asserted that he had not singed the plaint and that fraud was
committed. According to CBI, it was Ram Raj Singh who had
filed the suit, was shown as plaintiff No. 2 and it was his signa- ·
ture in the proceedings.
23. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellants B
is also right in contending that when present appellant No. 2
Avdesh Kumar was impleaded in December,' 2002 as party
and was very much on record in Appeal against Order, op-
portunity ought to have been afforded to him as to whether the
Appeal from Order had become infructuous and whether the C
suit would not survive. To us, it appears that the High Court fol-
lowed an easy path unknown to law when it rejected Review
Petition on May 28, 2003 by recalling the order passed on De-
cember 11, 2002 virtually rectifying the order passed on May 6,
2003. In our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have O
extended an opportunity of hearing before passing order dated
May 6, 2003 as also dated May 28, 2003 to appellant No.1-
Company as well as to appellant No.2-Avdesh Kumar.
24. As to the report of CBI and prima facie case found
against Ram Raj Singh in the investigation undertaken, it would E
not be appropriate to state anything one way or the other. Since
we are of the view that both the orders passed by the High Court
are liable to be set aside only on the ground of non- obser-
vance of natural justice, the matter should be remanded to the
High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Observa- F
tions made by this Court may adversely affect one or the other
party and it is not appropriate to express any such opinion. We
are, however, convinced that both the orders dated May 06,
2003 and May 28, 2003 passed by the High Court are liable to
be set aside. G ,
25. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Orders dated
May 06, 2003 and May 28, 2003 are hereby set aside. The
matters are remanded to the High Court for fresh decision in
accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all
H
1218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A the parties.
26. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we
may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter; one way or the other. As and when the
matter will be placed before the High Court, it will be decided
B on its own merits without being influenced by any observations
made by it in the impugned orders or by us in this judgment.
27. Ordered accordingly. On the facts and in the circum-
stances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
C CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6282 OF 2008 @ SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (CIVIL) N0.5593 OF 2007
28. Leave granted.
29. The present appeal is an offshoot of appeals arising
D out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10554-55 of 2002
titled M/s Hanu Motels Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation
Ltd. & Anr.
30. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, we have
stated them in detail in the above appeals and it is not neces-
E sary to reiterate them here. It may, however, be stated that in
the light of the directions issued by the High Court in the order
dated May 06, 2003 in Appeal against Order No. 120 of 2002
that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should take ap-
propriate' steps against the persons who had played serious
F fraud by investigating the matter and by prosecuting the per-
sons found guilty in investigation that CBI made the inquiry and
submitted the report.
31. In_ the report, CBI collected documentary and oral evi-
-G dence which established that Ram Raj Singh had filed Declara-
tory Suit No. 111 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Haridwar. He signed the plaint, vakalatnama and af-
fidavit in the suit. Oral and documentary evidence collected by
CBI also revealed and the investigation established that Ram
H Raj Singh was a Director of M/s Hanu Motels Pvt. Ltd.
M/S. HANU MOTEL PVT LTD. & ORS. v. U.P. 1219
FINANCIAL CORPN. LTD. & ANR. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
~
32. In the light of the findings of CBI, the Registrar General A
of the High Court filed a Complaint No. 297 of 2005 against
Ram Raj Singh that he intentionally and deliberately made a
false statement before the High Court to the effect that he did
not file any suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Haridwar, he did not put signatures on plaint and affidavit and B
was not prosecuting a suit nor he had been a Director of M/s
Hanu Motel Pvt. Ltd. and the suit was filed by resorting to im-
personation. According to Registrar General by doing so, Ram
Raj Singh had committed an offence punishable under Sec-
tion 193, Indian Penal Code, 1860. He, therefore, prayed that c
accused Ram Raj Singh be summoned and tried in accordance
with law.
33. Accused Ram Raj Singh in view of the complaint filed
by Registrar General of the High Court made an Application
for Direction No. 11659 of 2006 in Appeal against Order No. D
120 of 2002 praying therein that no cognizance should be taken
of the investigation by Inspector, CBI and for quashing of pro-
ceedings.
34. The High Court by the impugned order dated Decem-
ber 22, 2006 quashed the proceedings inter alia observing that E
proceedings initiated by the Registrar General were without ju-
risdiction and not maintainable. They were, therefore, liable to
be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed by
the High Court by granting liberty to pass fresh order in accor-
dance with law. F
35. Since we have allowed the appeals filed by the ap-
pellants in the connected matters and set aside the order
passed by the High Court by remitting the matter to the High
Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording
G
opportunity of hearing to all the parties, in our opinion, this or-
"* der also is liable to be set aside. Since the High Court will con-
sider the entire material on record including report of CBI, it is
obvious that the High Court will pass appropriate order in the
light of materials placed before the Court.
H
1220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.
\
~
A 36. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated Decem-
ber 22, 2006 passed by the High Court in Application for Direc-
tion No. 11659 of 2006 in Appeal against Order No. 120 of
2002 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court
B for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording oppor-
tunity of hearing to all the parties.
37. Ordered accordingly. On the facts and in the circum-
stances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

C K.K.T. Appeals allowed.