O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Namakkal returning the petitioner's application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., seeking to prosecute the respondent for tendering false evidence before the Court, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

2. The facts that led to filing of the revision is as follows:-

The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2011 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.12,47,983/- due and payable under a promissory note dated 10.08.2008 allegedly executed by the petitioner for a principal sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. Claiming that the petitioner has not paid either the principal or the interest, the said suit was filed for recovery. The suit came to be decreed after contest and an appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by this Court.

3.The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed two applications. One for re-calling the judgment and other to prosecute the respondent / plaintiff in the suit for having tendered false evidence. The claim that the respondent had tendered false evidence was based on his evidence in a Maintenance Case filed by his wife seeking monthly maintenance wherein, the respondent had claimed th