JOGINDER NATH Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar dated 27th June, 1974, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Srinagar dated 16th November, 1973, refusing to initiate the proceedings against the respondent under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.

(2.) WITH a view to determine and appreciate the controversy involved in this revision petition, it is necessary to take note of few admitted facts of the case. The respondent before me had filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 1,200/- against the petitioner and another person on the basis of certain vouchers showing the purchase of certain goods by the petitioner and the other person from the respondent. The petitioner had appeared in the trial court and filed a writ-tenstatement. Subsequently, however, the petitioner absented himself and the case was proceeded ex parte against him. The learned Judge Small Cause Court, vide the judgment and decree dated 28th December, 1967, decreed the suit of the plaintiff which had been instituted by him on 4th of April, 1966. An application was filed before the learned trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree, but the same was also dismissed. An appeal was thereafter taken by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Srinagar who also dismissed that appeal on March 7th, 1972, thus, confirming the, judgment and decree of the trial court. Thereafter, the respondent took steps for the execution of the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application on 28-11-1972 before the learned trial Judge (who was also acting as the executing court) to take action against the respondent under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the respondent had obtained the decree on the basis of some fabricated voucher. Since that application was rejected and an appeal against that order was also dismissed, the petitioner has come up to this Court in this revision petition.

(3.) THE short question for determination before me is whether the learned trial court and the learned Sessions Judge, in refusing to initiate proceedings under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent passed an order which is illegal or perverse or is not otherwise warranted by facts and circumstances of the case and the law.