RAMKRISHNA NANDRAM Vs. GANESH NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The facts leading to this application for revision are shortly these. On 17th October 1924 the applicant and his brother, Prithaviraj, executed a mortgage (Ex. P-1) in favour of the non-applicant for Rs. 1,500. The property mortgaged was a house situate at Wardha. Prior to this transaction in a suit against him filed by one Trikamji in the Court of Munsif Chandur, the applicant had, on 18th September 1922, suffered a decree for about Rs. 2,000 by creating a charge upon the Wardha house. In the mortgage deed it is recited that the mortgaged property was not under "mortgage or sale" any where. In execution of his decree Trikamji wanted to enforce his charge by the sale of the house which was the subject of the non-applicant's mortgage and the non-applicant then came to know last year that the applicant had cheated him by suppressing the fact of the charge which he had created upon the mortgaged property in the suit in the Chandur Court in favour of Trikamji. In execution of Trikamji's decree the applicant's brother, one Haridas, got half the house released on the ground that he had an interest in the property which was not subject to the charge.

(2.) ON these facts the non-applicant lodged a complaint in the Court of Mr. Hardas, Magistrate, First Class, Wardha, charging the applicant of having committed an offence Under Section 420, I.P.C. In his defence the applicant asserted that at the time of effecting the mortgage he had informed the non applicant of the fact of the charge. Although the trying Magistrate found that the applicant had made no such disclosures still he discharged the applicant having come to the conclusion that the dispute was of a civil nature and did not come within the purview of Section 420, I.P.C. Against this order of discharge the non-applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, Wardha, who set aside the order of discharge and remanded the case for further inquiry. It is against this order that the applicant has come up to this Court in revision. The order of the Sessions Judge is attacked here on two main grounds: