MADHO PRASAD Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By our order dated 28th August, 2006, we have allowed RFA 54/2006, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the suit back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. While doing so, we have not recorded any finding on the factual aspect of the controversy between the parties except to the extent it was relevant for determining whether rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action was legally justified. The present application filed by the respondents seeking an inquiry against respondents No. 5 and 6 and their prosecution for the alleged commission of offence of perjury under Section 193 of the IPC, therefore, appears to be premature. In the absence of a finding on the correctness or otherwise on the versions given by the parties, it is neither proper nor otherwise advisable to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 or prosecution against the respondents. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits an inquiry only in cases where the court finds it expedient in the interest of justice to conduct any such inquiry. It is, in the instant case, neither necessary nor expedient to conduct any inquiry into the allegations of perjury leveled against the respondents. It shall, however, be open to respondents No. 1 to 4 applicants to seek appropriate orders and redress before the trial court at the appropriate stage. With these observations, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.