ORDER: The above petition is filed to aside the Order dated 17.6.2004 made in S.R.No. 751 of 2004 by the District Judge, Karur confirming the order dated 18-3-2004 made in unnumbered Crl.M.P. filed under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., by the Additional District Munsif, Karur. 2. Heared both sides. 3. The petitioner would contend that he filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the district Munsif, Karur for permanent injunction. It is alleged that the signature of the third plaintiff was forged by her husband and accordingly, he has filed a petition under Sec.340, Crl.P.C. which was not taken on file and it was rejected as not maintainable in law. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Judge, Karur, who also confirmed the order of the District Munsif. The above revision is filed challenging the said order. 4. The petitioner would contend that the trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that similar allegations were made even in the suit itself and a finding is rendered in the judgment and as long as the said finding is not set aside, it is not necessary to proceed with the matter by way of a seperate petition under Sec.340, Crl.P.C. The learned counsel would contend that the above reasoning of the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court, which is contrary to law. According to the petitioner, the action initiated under Sec.340, Crl.P.C, is an independant action and the petitioner need not wait till the finding rendered by the trial Court in the judgment in connection with the said issue is set aside. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner herein has levelled some allegations not only against the respondents 5 to 8 that they have forged the signature of the third plaintiff but also on the counsel who appeared before the Court below and also against the Counsel who appeared before this Court. The petitioner also gave a complaint before the Bar Council against the counsel levelling the same allegations. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, unless the finding rendered by the trial Court is set aside, the petitioner herein cannot be granted such a permission to proceed under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., and it would cause undue hardship. 6. The petitioner also gave a complaint before the Bar Council against the counsel levelling the same allegations. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, unless the finding rendered by the trial Court is set aside, the petitioner herein cannot be granted such a permission to proceed under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., and it would cause undue hardship. 6. Learned counsel would further contend that inasmuch as a specific finding was rendered by the learned District Munsif, with regard to the allegations levelled as against the respondents 5 to 8 as well as, the advocates, unless the said finding is set aside on the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the matter independently in seperate proceedings. Learned counsel would further contend that even before the appeal could be disposed of, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sec.340, Crl.P.C and hence, would contend that the order of the courts below do not call for any interference. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 8. A perusal of the records would disclose that a specific finding is rendered by the learned District Munsif to the effect that an action should be initiated under Sec.340, Crl.P.C. on the ground that the husband of the third plaintiff has forged the signature of his wife in pursuing the legal proceedings. The learned District Munsif has elaborately dealt with the said aspect and rendered the said finding. It is not in dispute that the appeal is filed as against the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif and the same is pending before the appellate Court. Inasmuch as the finding of the learned District Munsif was not set aside by the appellate Court, more particularly, the right of initiating action under Sec.340 Crl.P.C., the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to proceed further under Sec.340, Crl.P.C. 9. For the reasons stated above, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the Court below and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10. When the above order is pronounced, the petitioner herein sought for leave to approach the Apex Court. I not find any substantial question of law involved in this petition and hence, the request to grant leave, is rejected.