I.D. Dua, J.
1. Shingara Singh describing himself to be an adopted son of BahaI Singh but real son of Gehal Singh filed a second appeal from order (S. A. 0. 6 of 1962) in this Court on 26-9-1961. On the same day, he filed an application purporting to be under Order 41, Rule 1, read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, alleging that he had filed an application for the issue of an attested copy of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, llnd Class, Muktsar dated 12-7-3960 but the same had not till then been supplied to him. It was prayed that the period for supplying the copy of the said judgment of the trial Court be extended and that it would be filed as soon as the same is received. There being no affidavit in support of this petition, it was returned to be refiled within a week. The appeal was, however, refiled on 30-1-1962 with an affidavit dated 29-1-1962 in which it was affirmed that the deponent had filed an application for the issue of the attested copy of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Class, Muktsar, dated 12-7-1960, but the same had not till then been supplied. The matter came up for admission before me in February 1962, when I ordered that attested copy of the judgment of the trial Court should be produced before the appeal is heard in limine and I declined dispensation of the production of the copy of the first Court. The matter next came up before me on 18-4-1962 when I held the appeal to be barred by time as the copy of the judgment of the trial Court had not been applied for till 12-3-1962. This was obvious from the certified copy of the judgment produced on this record. I, therefore, called upon Shingara Singh to show cause as to why proceedings for filing a false affidavit dated 29-1-1962 in this Court be not taken against him.
2. In pursuance of this notice, Shingara Singh produced an affidavit dated 29-7-1962 stating that an appeal in this Court was filed on 26-9-1961 and that on 29-1-1962 the deponent had filed an application for copy of the judgment of the trial Court. In fact he had instructed his father Gehal Singh to apply for a copy but due to some inadvertent circumstances the deponent's father could not do so on 29-1-1962, and that he did so on 30-1-1962. The application was returned to the dependent's father on 8-2-1952 with the remarks that file of case No. 631 of 1959 had been requisitioned by the District Judge. Shingara Singh produced an application for a copy of the judgment in Makhan Singh etc. v. Ladha Singh etc. given by the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Muktsar, but in the column dealing with 'details of copies sought', I find some interpolation and the words 'copy of decree sheet' seem to me to have been scored out. There is, however, an entry in respect of 'the final order' there. This application purports to be by Gehal Singh son of Parja Singh who is also impleaded as a respondent in the appeal. With this application is also another application in which Gehal Singh the maternal father of Shingara Singh on 8.2.1962 complained to the officer incharge copying department that till then he had not received a copy of the judgment though he had applied on urgent fee. It is on this application that there is a note that the file in question had been requisitioned by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore.
3. It is obvious that the application dated 26-9-1961 contained an obviously false assertion that he (the appellant) had filed an application for an attested copy of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Muktsar. The affidavit dated 29-1-1962 purporting as it does to be in support of the application of 26-9-1961, also seems to me to be not quite correct. The application filed by his father seems to me to have been now utilised to justify the assertion made by him in this Court.
4. On 7-8-1962, Shingara Singh filed another affidavit stating that by oversight and in inadvertence but without any mala fide intention he had filed the affidavit dated 29-1-1962 and that actually it was the deponent's father and not the deponent who applied for it on 30-1-1962. He however, threw himself at the mercy of the Court and tendered an unqualified apology praying for being excused.
5. To file a false affidavit with the object of securing admission of an appeal, which is obviously barred by time on the representation that the copying department has not yet supplied the copy, is a very grave and serious matter and the person who does so, acts in a manager which shows that he has absolutely no respect for the sanctity of oath. Law enjoins that persons making statements on oath or affirmation speak the truth and it is of paramount importance that those who approach the Court of justice do speak the truth and realise that it is by speaking the truth alone that they can advance the cause of justice and help the Court in discharging its duty as an adjudicator in the administration of justice. By deliberately deviating from the path of truth the guilty suitor pollutes or attempts to pollute the purity of the fountain of justice and thus commits a serious wrong to the Court and to the society as a whole of which it is not desirable -- and indeed is dangerous -- to take a lenient view.
6. But this apart, in the instant case the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is dated 26-6-1961 and an application for the requisite copy of the judgment of that Court was made on 30-3-1961. The copy was attested on 8-9-1961 and delivered to the applicant on 13-9-1961. The appeal in this Court was presented on 26-9-1961 without a copy of the judgment of the trial court. The memorandum of appeal was returned to be refiled within a week but the same was not refiled till as late as 30-1-1962. On these facts, It appears to me that Shingara Singh tried to mislead this Court into admitting his appeal on a false representation which would suggest that the appeal would be within limitation and that delay in securing the copy of the judgment of the trial Court was due to causes beyond his control and it was so in spite of his due diligence. This, in my opinion, also verges almost on contempt of Court, for, the representation contained in the application dated 26-9-1961 and the affidavit read together clearly tend to intefere with the due course of justice.
7. An aggrieved person, who, seeking justice for his cause, which he represents to be righteous and based on truth, approaches the Court of justice must never consciously and deliberately by making false affirmation pollute and pervert or attempt to pollute and pervert the purity of the fountain from which he himself professes to secure justice, for, the contrary course of conduct would cut at the very root of the purpose professedly sought to be achieved by the aggrieved party and for which alone the Courts exist.
8. I would have taken a more serious view of the matter, but In view of the realization by the deponent that he has done something wrong, I am inclined, though some what reluctantly, to drop the matter here. I, however, must emphasise and leave no doubt in anybody's mind that In future filing of false affidavits in this Court would not be considered lightly or treated with indifference, for, it Is the sanctity of oath on which essentially and basically depends the efficaciousness of the administration of justice according to law and the honoured and respectable position which it occupies in our system of Government. To preserve and maintain this position for the administration of justice is the obligation and bounder) duty of all good citizens, for, justice based on truth is the great concern of man on earth; it is the ligament which holds civilized beings together. The temple of justice is the foundation of social security, the general happiness and future progress and healthy development of cur society. On this premise, the bar or the legal profession which is a Working part of our society's quest for justice, has, because of its privileged position in our legal system, a special responsibility imposed on it, to enlighten the ignorant laity of the grave danger of any attempt at polluting the purity of the fountain of justice by deliberately producing false evidence.
9. I am not unmindful of the recent trend disclosed by the increase in the filing of false affidavits by litigants In this Court, and, indeed, it is the consciousness of this evil which has impelled me to point out the urgent and Imperative necessity of discouraging and suppressing this discreditable tendency, and, if I may say so, it is primarily for this very reason that I have struck the note of warning that in future this Court would not lightly Ignore the filing of false affidavits.
10. Truth is one of the main basic ingredients which constitute the foundation of civilized and orderly human society. Absence of regard and respect for truth is thus bound to give rise to such confused and chaotic condilions that it would be exceedingly difficult -- if not well-nigh impossible -- for any decent orderly society to exist. Respect for truth is, by and large, regarded as a yardstick with which to measure the character of a nation and her status in the civilized world. Every citizen should, therefore, feel vitally Interested in encouraging respect for truth. So far as administration of justice in this Republic goes, it is impossible to divorce it from truth, for, without truth it is not possible even to think of dispensing real justice which has been rightly described as 'Truth in action'. And it is for this very reason that I have drawn the attention of the bar -- which functions as a sleepless sentinel vigilantly guarding freedom and liberty under the law -- to this matter. The lawyer, as already noticed above, is an integral part of our legal system and is rightly described to be an officer of this Court; the legal system is in turn a part of the larger society. If the larger society Is to exist without chaos and to progress in accordance with the basic rules of our social system and our system of Government, respect for law must be maintained and promoted, for, law can legitimately be described to be perhaps the strongest link between man and freedom, the glue that holds civilization together. Production of false, affidavits in Court, in my opinion, clearly promotes dis-respect for law. It is thus the lawyer's burden, as indeed. It is also his privilege, to educate the ignorant in this respect and point out to them the evil consequences which must flow from attempts to pollute the pure and sacred atmosphere of the temple of Justice -- the Court. Without pursuing this matter any further, I discharge the rule and drop the proceedings.