VIDYADHAR Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected petitions, which are styled as petitions under Section, 439, Cr.P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 115, Civil P. C. The petitions arise under the following circumstances:

(2.) The petitioner, Vidyadhar, filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Solan, on 19-12-1949 against Sita Ram, respondent 1, complaining of trespass and damage. There was a further allegation that the defendant was raising a wall, round the tank, with a view to construct a room there and the same was likely to cause obstruction to the water-pipes and the tank. The plaintiff (Vidyadhar), therefore, sought a perpetual injunction restraining Sita Ram from committing the aforesaid acts of trespass and a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the structure erected by him. In support of his claim, the plaintiff filed a plan of the house and the garden showing the encroachments made by the defendant. He also filed certain extracts from the Patwari's papers pertaining to the land in dispute. The Subordinate Judge, eventually, came to the conclusion that the suit was beyond his jurisdiction and, accordingly, on 9-8-1952, the plaint and documents, referred to above, were returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. In point of tact, however, the plaint was not presented to any other Court subsequently. On 8-1-1953, Sita Ram moved the Subordinate Judge, Solan, to launch a prosecution against the petitioner, as well as Mansa Ram Patwari and one Devi Singh under Section 193, I. P. C., on the ground that the plan and the revenue extracts, filed along with the plaint, had been fabricated. The Subordinate Judge held an inquiry under Section 476, Cr. P. C., and came to the conclusion that the plan and the revenue extracts had been fabricated and, accordingly, directed the prosecution of the petitioner, as well as Devi Singh and Mansa Ram Patwari under Section 193, I. P C. (In respect of the plan Vidyadhar was to be prosecuted under Section 193, read with Section 109, I. P. C.). Against these orders, Vidyadhar and Devi Singh went up in appeal to the learned District Judge of Mahasu under Section 476B, Cr. P. C. The appeals were, however, rejected. Vidyadhar and Devi Singh now come up in revision.

(3.) As already stated, the petitions are styled as Ones under Section 439, Cr. P. C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 115, C. P. C.