IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.11.2024 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar C.R.P. No.3287 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.17570 & 19363 of 2024 P.Vasantha Kumari ... Petitioner Vs.

Ishwari Hemnani ... Respondent Prayer:-

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Docket order of the learned District Munsif, directing the petitioner to give notice to the respondent in MJC No.1 of 2024 dated 05.07.2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi For Respondent : Mr.R.Chandra Sudan

O R D E R

Challenge has been made in this Revision Petition to the Docket Order passed by the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Trial Court) in MJC No.1 of 2024 dated 05.07.2024.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

i) A suit in O.S.No.68 of 2016 was filed by one P.Rajalakshmi and P.Vasanthakumari, the revision petitioner herein against Mrs.Victoria Jebarani and six others for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 03.09.2018. Aggrieved against the said ex parte decree, the fifth defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule XIII CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree along with a condone delay application, seeking to condone the delay of 1956 days, wherein, it is contended as follows:-

ii) The suit property was purchased by the fifth defendant's mother from one Pandurangan on 30.03.1998; in the year 2000, the fifth defendant moved out of Nilgiris and due to advanced age and ill-health, he was unable to keep track of the suit property and decided to sell the suit property; that the fifth defendant came to understand that the first plaintiff is making frantic attempts to appropriate the suit property and came to understand that the ex parte judgment and decree obtained by the first respondent and that at the time when he comes to know the mischievous act done by the first plaintiff, there happened to be a delay of 1984 days in preferring the Petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

iii) At that juncture, the revision petitioner has taken out a petition in M.J.C.No.1 of 2024 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. praying to prosecute the respondent/5^th defendant for making false statement by averring that the respondent/5^th defendant has made fallacious statement in the affidavits filed in support of the Application filed to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree along with Condone Delay Application by averring that the revision petitioner and the first plaintiff had maneuvered to obtain the said decree behind his back and that he was totally unaware of the suit proceedings.

iv) The Trial Court, while entertaining the petition filed by the revision petitioner herein, ordered notice of hearing to the respondent, vide order dated 05.07.2024. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the so-called affidavit sworn to by the respondent/fifth defendant contains only of false and fallacious statements, and thereby, the respondent had committed the offence of perjury punishable under Section 191 IPC, accordingly, the revision petitioner sought for action against the respondent/fifth respondent and prayed for a direction, directing the Trial Court to conduct a preliminary enquiry as prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to forward appropriate complaint against the respondent to learned Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence, whereas, the Trial Court, without appreciating the said aspects in a proper perspective, committed an error in ordering notice to the respondent/fifth defendant and passed an order, dated 05.07.2024, directed the petitioner to serve the notice of hearing on the respondent5th defendant.

3.1 The bone of contention of the lear