KAN SINGH, J.—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 secs. 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 scrbied 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, Ram Dayal, Madanlal and Kistoor Chand were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant 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.

4. In the light of the evidence the learned Judge held that it was not established that the defendants had received Rs. 1000/- from the plaintiff or that they had executed the suit document Ex. 1. In view of his finding the learned Judge ordered that a notice be issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. I may reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment where the learned Judge has dealt with the question of issuing the notice. Translated by me the relevant portion runs as follows:—

"As issues Nos. 1 and 2 have been decided against the plaintiff he is not entitled to get any relief against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. It was found during the inquiry that Bahadurmal has on account of his malice against the defendants forged the document Ex-1, and in order to make a gain on the basis thereof, has filed this suit which act of his comes under section......I.P.C. (The learned Judge has not quoted the relevant section in the judgment) Consequently let a notice go to the petitioner to show cause why a complaint be not lodged against him for his prosecution in the competent court. The costs of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 shall be payable by Bahadurmal the next friend of the plaintiffs."

It appears that a notice had gone to the petitioner as per the direction of the learned Civil Judge contained in his judgment referred to above and after the petitioner had given his reply the learned Judge ordered on 31-5-63, that a complaint be lodged in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,, Balotra against the petitioner. The learned Judge also observed in his order dated 31-5-63., that the petitioner had not filed any appeal against his judgment dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The learned Judge drew up the complaint and signed it on 19-7-63. It reached the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 20-7-63, but the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not at the headquarters and, therefore, no action seems to have been taken thereon on that day. On 27-7-63 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took action on that complaint and eventually registered the case against the petitioner on 29-7-63. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge for the filing of the comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document