1. The Petitioners herein are Plaintiffs in an original suit in O.S.No.26 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. They have approached this Court to set aside the order passed in an unnumbered Criminal Appeal No…… of 2008 dated 30.12.2008 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram confirming the order passed in an unnumbered I.A.No…. of 2008 dated 03.11.2008 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam and pray for the direction of this Court to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam to hold an enquiry in the petition filed by the Petitioners under section 340 of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts behind the institution of the instant petition is that the Petitioner is the Plaintiff as stated above, the 1st and 2nd Respondent herein is the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively before the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in O.S.No.26 of 2005. The 3rd Respondent herein is the 2nd witness in the aforesaid original suit on behalf of the Defendants. Admittedly the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2005 was filed for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction as against the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein and also as against the Electricity Department.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein are father and son. The 1st Respondent created a sale deed which is sham and nominal without disclosing the correct facts in respect of the suit properties. On 16.06.2003, the 2nd Petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st Respondent with respect to the suit property consisted of 8 shops and a building. The reason for the execution of the aforesaid power of attorney was that the 2nd Petitioner decided to go abroad, but later he dropped the plan to go to abroad. In the meanwhile, as the conduct of 1st Respondent towards the 2nd Petitioner was unsatisfactory and doubtful, the 2nd Petitioner cancelled the aforesaid power of attorney on 10.05.2004 with prior information. Moreover, the revocation of the power of attorney was also published in a newspaper in order to sensitize the public aware about the cancellation of the power of attorney. Apart from that in respect of the cancellation of the power of attorney, a legal notice was also issued to the 1st Respondent. In the meanwhile by a sale deed dated 09.06.2004 a title of the property was transferred by the 1st Respondent in favour of 2nd Respondent by using the deed of power of attorney dated 16.06.2003.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the course of enquiry, the 1st Respondent produced a sale deed dated 09.06.2004, and wherein sale consideration was mentioned, but the very same copy of the sale deed available with the concerned Registrar Office did not find any sale consideration. Thus, the Respondents have given false evidence which warranted legal action for perjury. So, the Petitioners had taken out a petition under section 340 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court for the initiation of legal action against the Defendants in O.S.No.26 of 2005, but the said petition was returned with a query about its maintainability. However, when it was represented it was once again returned by the order dated 03.11.2008.

5. Feeling aggrieved over the order passed on 03.11.2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, the Petitioners filed an appeal under Section 341 of Cr.P.C., before the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. However, by the order dated 30.12.2008 without numbering the appeal, the lower appellate Court dismissed the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as no revision would lie as against the order passed in the Criminal Appeal, the petitioners have filed the instant application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the lower appellate Court and the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Pet