IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18288 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1538/06 IN OS.109/2005 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, S.PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- G.BHAGAVAT SINGH, SAROJ GANGA, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY MR. G.BHAGAVAT SINGH (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SUSEELA, W/O.VIJAYAN, SANJAY BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.18288 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed impeaching the correctness of Exts.P12 and P13 orders passed by the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.109/2005. That suit was dismissed. After the dismissal, he filed two petitions before the court alleging that the plaintiff, by producing some forged documents and also filing a false affidavit is liable to be proceeded under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Both the petitions moved by the petitioner were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Copies of which are produced as Exts.P12 and P13. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Exts.P12 and P13 orders, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. At the time of WPC.18288/09 2 hearing, attention being invited to Section 341 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the complainant, who has sought for a proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum after an adverse order is passed on his petition the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition reserving his right to challenge Exts.P12 and P13 by way of appeal before the appropriate court. The time spent during the pendency of this petition is also sought to be exempted by the learned counsel for preferring the appeal. Exemption for the delay on account of the prosecution of this petition before the wrong forum for the relief claimed has to be granted by the court to which the appeal is preferred. However, I direct the court to which appeal, if any, is preferred to consider the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in entertaining that appeal. Reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer appeal against Exts.P12 and P13 orders and subject to the observations made above in considering the question of exemption for the time taken during the prosecution of this petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, this writ petition is dismissed as WPC.18288/09 3 withdrawn. Registry is directed to handover the certified copies of Exts.P12 and P13 orders to the counsel for the petitioner. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp