: 1 : IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition no. 244 of 2007 Parshuram Govind Chougule Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents. Mr.B.G. Moorty for the Petitioner Mr.V.S. Kapse for Respondent no. 2 Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State present. CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 3RD 3RD 3RD AUGUST 2007. AUGUST 2007. AUGUST 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- . Heard Mr. B.G. Moorty, learned counsel for the Petitoner who is the original Complainant in CC no. 25/I & R/2002. Process was issued against the present respondent no. 2 who comes from the same family as the Petitioner (first cousin). The Respondent no. 2 filed criminal revision application no. 170/2005 and challenged the order of issuance of process. The Revision application has been allowed by the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge at Sewree on 14-12-2006 and hence : 2 : this petition. 2. The dispute between the parties is regarding the title to Room no. 5, chawl no. 455, Tejbhai Bohari chawl, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai and present petitioner has already filed a civil suit for the declaration of title to the said room. It is contended that the respondent no. 2 accused forged certain documents to create his title for the same purpose. When the Petitioner has already filed a civil suit for declaration, the veracity of alleged documents would also be considered in the trial of the said suit and, therefore, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. 3. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned order as it cannot be termed to be perverse or erroneous. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J) MARLAPALLE, J) MARLAPALLE, J)