1. The trial of Original Suit No. 88 of 1920 after the ex parte decree against the defendant was set aside may be regarded as the continuation of the trial of the same suit which first ended in a decree for the plaintiff.
2. The definition of 'judicial proceeding' in Section 4 (m), Criminal Procedure Code, is not opposed to this view.
3. At the time of dismissing the suit, the District Munsif commenced to take action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, by issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause against an order being passed under that section. Therefore, the decisions in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 1 Ind Cas. 597 : 32 M. 49 : 19 M.L.J. 42 : 4 M.L.T. 404 : 9 Cr. L.J. 41 and In re Padmabha liebbara 50 Ind. Cas. 485 : 42 M. 422 : 9 L.W. 315 : 36 M.L.J. 352 : 25 M.L.T. 296; (1919) M.W.N. 223 : 20 Cr. L.J. 309 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Whether the petitioner's acts amount to offences under Sections 209 and 210, Indian Penal Code, is not of consequence in these proceedings. It is sufficient, that as a witness he is liable to be tried for offences under Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, for which sanction has been accorded.
4. The petition is dismissed.