1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3969 OF 2008 Chetan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner V E R S U S Pravinkumar Jinabhai Patel and others. Respondents Shri A.B.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Bajaj Advocate for the respondent – 1 Respondent No.2 Served. WRIT PETITION NO.3672 OF 2008 Chetan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Jalgaon, Through Director Vikram Anilkumar Patel. Petitioner V E R S U S Pravinkumar Jinabhai Patel and others. Respondents Shri A.B.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Bajaj Advocate for the respondent – 1 Shri A.K. Tiwari, Adv. for R-2. WRIT PETITION NO.3979 OF 2008 Chetan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner V E R S U S Pravinkumar Jinabhai Patel and others. Respondents Shri A.B.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Bajaj Advocate for the respondent – 1 Respondent No.2 reported to be dead. R-3 unserved. 2 WRIT PETITION NO.3714 OF 2008 Chetan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner V E R S U S Pravinkumar Jinabhai Patel and others. Respondents Shri A.B.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Bajaj Advocate for the respondent – 1 CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. This is a petition by original plaintiff seeking quashment of the order passed by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Jalgaon on 28.01.2008 directing return of application presented by the petitioner for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff instituted suits claiming declaration and injunction and also for grant of relief of declaration to the effect that sale deed in question be declared as bad in law and not binding on the right, title and entitlement of the plaintiffs. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter. Suffice it to say that contentions raised by the plaintiff in the plaint were controverted by contesting defendants by filing written statement. Written statement presented by the defendants came to be amended with the leave of the Court. On 05.09.2005 the defendants sought to place reliance on a 3 document namely an award passed in Arbitration proceedings between the parties on 07.07.1996. The contention of the plaintiff is that the award passed in the proceedings is false and fabricated and the defendants are instrumental in preparing forged and fabricated documents and have further placed same on record of the suit and thus have committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff as such presented applications praying for initiation of action by the Court as contemplated by section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The plaintiff contended in their application that the defendants have committed an offence of perjury and as such the court is required to present criminal complaint against the defendants. The applications tendered by the plaintiff were given different numbers. Simultaneously, the defendants also presented an application requesting the Court to register the applications tendered by the plaintiff separately as contemplated by the provisions of Civil Manual and requesting the court to deal with the applications in accordance with the law. The trial Court while considering the applications presented by the plaintiff and defendants allowed the application presented by the defendants and directed that applications presented by plaintiffs seeking initiation of criminal action at the instance of court be registered separately, where as the applications presented by the plaintiffs came to be returned back for proper 4 presentation. 2. I have heard the argument advanced by the respective counsel appearing for the parties. 3. It has been pointed out by the counsel appearing for the respondents that applications tendered by the plaintiff have to be registered separately as Miscellaneous Application Requiring Judicial Inquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Civil Manual. These are also required to be enquired separately. The Ld. Civil Judge was justified in directing the registration of the applications separately and that part of the order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge while entertaining the application presented by the defendants need not be interfered with. However, so far as order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge directing the return of the applications presented by plaintiff, for proper presentation, is unwarranted and needs to be modified. Application tendered by the plaintiffs which are placed on record can be registered as Miscellaneous Application Requiring Judicial Inquiry. The Ld. Judge shall deal with said applications in accordance with the law. With these directions petitions are disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J. ) ..... aaa/3969.08