EMPEROR Vs. BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Behari Lal sued Dwarka Prasad in the Munsif's Court at Etawah by suit No. 478 of 1925. The dispute was about some land within the municipality, and the defendant filed a plan of the municipality of date 1922 showing that his brother Thakur Das was in possession of a certain plot of land. The plaintiff Bihari Lal tiled another copy in which the words added were that it was land of Mt. Gobindi. The suit was dismissed in default of parties The District Magistrate naturally held an inquiry on hearing that two different copies of the same document were given to two parties by the municipality. He came to the conclusion that the copy filed by Bihari Lal was a forgery. He thereupon drew the attention of the Government, who directed him to inform the Court concerned of his suspicion. He did so by a petition dated 14 July 1927, in which he narrated the facts and informed the Court that the Local Government had directed him to draw the attention of the original civil Court to the suspicion of forgery. I think that the Collector and District Magistrate would have been better advised if he had written an official letter instead of putting in a stamped application. Possibly he was badly advised by the local Crown officers of law. The District Magistrate was no party to the suit and drew attention of the Court as he had reason to suspect that a crime had been committed. The Munsif held an inquiry and wrote a judgment which may be called a judgment facing both ways. He quotes a lot of law, but has not the courage to record any conviction as to whether the document was really a forgery or not. He ends up in doubt and therefore refuses to order prosecution. He dismissed the application of the District Magistrate, and awarded costs against the District Magistrate.

(2.) The District Magistrate has come here in revision. It may be noted that in the decree the costs are awarded against the King-Emperor through the District Magistrate of Etawah and not against the District Magistrate by name.

(3.) The first question raised on behalf of the respondent was that no application in revision would lie. This objection is not warranted by the words of Section 115, Civil P. C, which are: The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court in which no appeal lies thereto.