LAWS(PVC)-1916-8-116

KING EMPEROR Vs. KARRI VENKANNA PATRUDU

Decided On August 18, 1916
KING EMPEROR Appellant
V/S
KARRI VENKANNA PATRUDU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed that interference, with the order of the District Munsif, granting sanction, can be justified only under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the learned Judges have dealt with the case on that assumption and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to authorities in support of it. Abdur Rahim, J., further referred to Section 15 of the Charter Act and something was said regarding it by accused s counsel. We have however been shown only one reported case, in which this Court proceeded under it in circumstances similar to those now in question: Palaniappa Chetti v. Annamalai Chetti (1903) I.L.R. 27 M. 223 and the facts in it were of a very special character. I moreover agree with Ayling, J., that our power of superintendence should be invoked only in exceptional cases; and. this is not one. The question then is whether the District Munsif in the words of Section 115(c) acted in passing his order illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction; and I therefore note once for all that we are in my opinion at liberty to consider, not (as we might under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Proeedure) whether his order is founded on a sound use of his discretion, but only whether it complies with the minimumrequirements of the law.

(2.) The facts need not be repeated as they have been stated fully in the Judgments of the two learned Judges; and the arguments relied on here are with one exception stated fully in them. It is accordingly possible to deal shortly with the first two objections to the District Munsifs order, that he had before him no evidence or insufficient evidence to justify it. Accused s alleged false statement was that his land was never known by a particular name. The evidence to prove it false was that of two pleaders, who heard him say shortly before that it was known by that name, their depositions to that effect Having been recorded by the District Munsif at the preliminary anquiry, which he held. Cantra it is urged first that the District.

(3.) Munsif could not take action or even initiate a preliminary enquiry, until gome legal evidence was before him and that it was not sufficient for him to secure it afterwards. But this is supported by nothing in the section, is opposed to Baperam Surma v. Gouri Nath Dutt (1893) I.L.R. 20 C. 474 and is unreasonable, when, as here, the District Munsif himself heard the earlier statement made and merely recorded the pleaders depositions in order to obtain legal evidence of the fact. Secondly it is said that the earlier statement was privileged under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. This is not in accordance with the facts. For the statement was not made by accused to his pleader in the course of and for the purpose of bis employment as such, but merely in the presence of his pleader as well as those of his opponents and of the District Munsif in the course of the conversation regarding compromise, in which the last mentioned appears to have officiously and perhaps injudiciously taken part.