Factual verification before abuse of process inquiry as HC directs affidavit on disputed pleadings and record discrepancies.

In proceedings concerning alleged inconsistencies in the petitioner's pleadings and discrepancies in the record, the HC required factual verification before addressing any allegation of abuse of process. The Court noted the need to clarify the petitioner's proprietorship, the circumstances in which the reply to the show cause notice under Section 129(3) was filed, and whether misleading averments had been made. It directed the respondents to place the relevant facts on affidavit, permitted a rejoinder, exempted the officials from personal appearance on the next date, and listed the matter for further hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inconsistencies in the petitioner's pleadings and the alleged discrepancies in the record warranted calling for a counter affidavit and further consideration of the allegation of abuse of process.

Analysis: The matter was treated as requiring verification of the competing factual assertions, including the identity of the petitioner's proprietor, the circumstances in which the reply to the show cause notice under Section 129(3) was stated to have been filed, and the allegation that the petitioner had made misleading averments. The Court directed the respondents to place the relevant facts on record by affidavit and deferred consideration of any further consequences.

Outcome: Counter affidavit was directed to be filed, rejoinder was permitted, personal appearance of the officials was exempted for the future date, and the matter was listed for further hearing.

---