BAHADURMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision applications before me are of identical nature and by them the petitioner Bahadurmal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned District judge, Balotra, dated 19-12-63, by which the learned Judge declined to interfere with an order of the learned Civil Judge Balotra, whereby the learned Civil Judge ordered the filing of a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 463 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the revision applications can conveniently be disposed of together.

(2.) AS the facts too are identical it will be sufficient to re-count them with reference to suit No. 447 of 1959 in the court of the Civil Judge, Balotra.

(3.) THE petitioner Bahadurmal filed a suit on behalf of his minor sons Manilal and parasmal as their next friend for recovering an amount of Rs. 1000 on the foot of a bond from the defendants Mst. Chuni and Ghewarchand. In that suit the important issue amongst others was about the execution of the bond by the defendants. Bahadurmal examined himself as a witness and he deposed that the suit document was scribed by him at the instance of the defendants, who thereafter appended their thumb marks and at their behest the attesting witnesses also signed the same. Witnesses Birdi Chand, Bam Dayal, Madanlal and Kistoor chand were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that the document had never been executed by them and the plaintiff had, on account of previous enmity, fabricated a false document for basing a wrong claim only to cause harm to them. It is not necessary to deal with the reasons that had weighed with the learned Judge in coming to his findings. It will be sufficient to refer to the finding only.