AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After perusing the District Munsif''s report and hearing the petitioner''s learned Vakil''s arguments, we must find that the petitioner has totally failed to prove that he was not served with notice as third respondent in Second Appeal No. 2592 of 1912.
This petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him in the second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
The District Munsif''s report shows that there are good grounds to prosecute the petitioner for the perjury committed (according to the District Munsif''s report) in his (the petitioner''s) evidence given at the enquiry before the District Munsif, he having denied the signature purporting to be his in the notice issued to him as 3rd respondent from this Court and that denial has been disbelieved by the District Munsif and not accepted by us, though our opinions are, of course, not binding upon the Magistrate who would try the criminal case. u/s 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we give sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner on a charge u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the petitioner''s said statement. The District Munsif will direct the process-server (petitioner''s witness No. 4 at the inquiry) to act upon the said sanction.