ORDER 1. After perusing the District Munsifs report and hearing the petitioners learned Vakils 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. 2. This petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him in the second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. 3. The District Munsifs report shows that there are good grounds to prosecute the petitioner for the perjury committed (according to the District Munsifs report) in his (the petitioners) 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. Under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we give sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner on a charge under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the petitioners said statement. The District Munsif will direct the process-server (petitioners witness No. 4 at the inquiry) to act upon the said sanction.