IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.8 of 2008 Shankar Narayan Shahi son of Shri Ramjee Prasad Shahi, Resident of Mohalla-Sahebganj Pargana Manjhi, P.S. Chapra Town District Chapra (Saran). ……………….Petitioner-Petitioner. Versus 1. Md. Isha son of late Md. Harun, Resident of Mohalla Sahebganj Pargana Manjhi, P.S. Chapra Town, District Chapra (Saran) 2. Awadh Bihari Singh, Peon, Civil Court, Chapra. 3. Md. Habib son of late Md. Rahman, Resident of Mohalla Chhota Telpa (Takiapar) P.S. Chapra Town, District Chapra (Saran) 4. Munna Kumar son of Mahanjee Manjhi, Resident of Mohalla Purani Gurhatti, P.S. Chapra Town, District Chapra(Saran)…..Opposite parties-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : M/s Veena Rani Prasad and Vishal Saurabh, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 04/ 04.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- applicant-petitioner challenging order dated 22.09.2007 by which learned Munsif-I, Saran dismissed Miscellaneous Case No.19 of 2003, which was filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Magistrate to initiate a criminal proceeding against plaintiff-opposite party-opposite party no.1 due to the alleged forgeries committed by him in the ‘parwana’ issued from the Nazarat. 3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.06 of 2000 which was filed by opposite party no.1 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiff and default in payment of rent by the defendant. The 2 aforesaid suit was decided ex-parte against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in eviction appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate court and finally the second appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed by this court. 4. It transpires that for execution of the decree of eviction passed by the learned trial court, Execution Case No.01 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder-opposite party no.1 in which parwana was issued to the defendant by the executing court and the defendant appeared in the execution case and contested the same, whereafter D/P was issued and finally delivery of possession has been affected in favour of the plaintiff-decree holder. 5. However learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the said execution case and before his appearance two parwanas were issued bringing the process server (O.P.No.2) and the witnesses (O.P.Nos.3 and 4) in collusion, whereafter they combined together and committed forgery in the parwana intentionally by cutting the signature and date given by the petitioner and hence defendant-petitioner filed Misc. Case No.19 of 2003 before the executing court for a direction that criminal case be initiated against plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for the said forgery. The said application has been dismissed by the learned court below vide its order dated 22.09.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. From the averments made by learned counsel for 3 the petitioner and the materials on record it transpires that the learned court below had considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and had found that Ext.A which was the second page of service report of Execution Case No.01 of 2001 clearly showed that dates 12.01.2001, 20.01.2001 and 15.01.2001 had been mentioned therein and the same dates were also mentioned in Ext.1, which was the main service report and even in the affidavit filed before the Nazir and there was no cutting in them. Hence the learned court below rightly came to the conclusion that whatever cutting had been made was made after the service report was submitted by the process server before the Nazir and not before it. 7. Learned court below also found that there was no cutting in the statements written below in column nos.4, 5 and 6 of Ext.A, whereas there was cutting in Ext.1, but from that cutting it transpired that after cutting, the same words were re- written hence there was no occasion for the plaintiff-decree holder to make cuttings and incorporate the same thing again. In this connection the learned court below found that the witnesses of the plaintiff had suggested that the cuttings were made by the defendant-judgment debtor himself only to harass the plaintiff- decree holder and deny him the peaceful enjoyment of the suit premises even after delivery of possession. 8. In the said circumstances the learned court below was quite justified in holding that the charges levelled by the defendant-judgment debtor were not at all reliable as there was 4 no occasion for the plaintiff-decree holder to make any cutting or interpolation which was not at all in his favour. Furthermore, the learned court below also rightly came to the conclusion that the defendant-judgment debtor had failed to show any interpolation made by or on behalf of the plaintiff-decree holder. This view of the lower court appears to be reasonable and justified as it was based upon the pleadings and materials before the learned court below. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another question that after receiving miscellaneous case petition, the duty of the court was to refer the matter to the magistrate so that investigations could be made, but the learned court below did not do so rather the learned court below started investigation itself which was not legal and proper. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be justified or legal as the learned court below is not merely a post office to receive the objection raised by the petitioner and to send it to a magistrate, rather it is the duty of the court to consider the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and only when it was found to be proper and justified the matter can be referred to a criminal court. 10. In the said circumstances the learned court below was quite justified in first considering itself whether the objection raised by the defendant-judgment debtor was legal, justified and proper, but the defendant-petitioner having failed to show any semblance of genuineness in his claim, the learned 5 court below was quite justified in rejecting the application filed by him. 11. Hence, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)