IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.263 of 2008 Durga Srivastava @ Anil Kumar Sinha son of Late Kedar Srivastava, resident of Mohalla Baitarni Brahamsutta, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya.……….Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. Versus Shambhu Thakur son of late Brahamdeo Thakur, resident of Mohalla Baitarni, Brahamsutta, P.S. Civil Lines, District Gaya.………Plaintiff-Respondent-Opposite party. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, Advocate. For the opposite party : M/s Surendra Kumar and Ajit Kumar, Advocates. ---------- 02/ 11.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner and learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- appellant-petitioner challenging order dated 20.12.2007 by which learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Gaya dismissed Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2006(01/2007) filed against order dated 02.12.2006 passed by learned Munsif-I, Gaya in Title Suit No.55 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- respondent-opposite party for declaration of his title over the suit land and for permanent injunction against the defendant as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendant, whereafter issues were framed. 4. However, during the pendency of the suit the defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 14.09.2005 for prosecuting the plaintiff for making wrong statement in paragraph- 7 of the plaint and filing a forged and fabricated khatian in the 2 court. Hence, it was stated that the plaintiff was liable to be prosecuted under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court vide its order dated 02.12.2006. Against the aforesaid order, the defendant-petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2006(01/2007) in which plaintiff-opposite party also appeared and contested, whereafter the learned Additional District Judge- cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Gaya dismissed the said appeal vide its order dated 20.12.2007 after considering the pleadings and materials of the parties in detail. Against this order the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned courts below, but it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below had found that the original draft khatian was sealed in safe custody of the court and was to be opened at the time of examination of official witnesses. Furthermore, although the learned trial court had found something wrong in the said document filed by the plaintiff, but it had observed that it was not clear as to who had forged the document and the said conclusion would be clear after examination of the competent witnesses and evidence of both the sides. 6. In such matter the learned trial court has also to enquire into the said question and that can be done only when both the parties have adduced their evidence and thus there is 3 absolutely no illegality in the impugned order in view of the provision of section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as enquiry is yet to be done by the trial court. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )