A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Mahant Surendra Nath, who is the appellant in RFA (OS) No. 3/2008, was the plaintiff in the suit which was filed by him for declaration, possession and injunction. He wanted declaration to the effect that he is the lawful owner of suit property measuring 22.15 bighas of land in village Bahapur, Delhi. Decree of possession was sought seeking restoration of the possession of the said land which, according to him, has been unlawfully and illegally encroached upon by the DDA. Impleading Union of India as defendant No.1 and DDA as defendant No.2, the precise prayers made in the suit were as under :-

“(a) A decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property measuring 22.15 bighas of village Bahapur, Delhi (22 bigha 15 biswas). (b) A decree of possession directing the defendant to restore the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on as is where is basis. (c) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the fencing, boundary wall, if any, before restoration of the possession to the plaintiff. (d) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring and changing character of the land and from creating any third party interest in the suit property. (e) The plaintiff also claims the cost of the suit throughout.

(f) Any other relief that this Hon?ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The said was filed by Shri Satish Kumar as attorney of Mahant Surendra Nath. During the pendency of the said suit, certain applications were filed. Five applications were under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, „CPC?) by different persons seeking impleadment in the suit and one application was under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, details whereof shall be noted at the appropriate stage. However, when arguments on those applications were advanced, counsel for the plaintiff had sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a proper suit on the ground that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable as without seeking partition of the land, in which the plaintiff claims 50% share, the possession could not have been asked for.

3. Prayer for withdrawal of the suit, though, was allowed, but at the same time the learned Single Judge was of the view that such a prayer was made when the attorney felt that the learned Single Judge had assessed, after recording his statement, that the suit was replete with the concealment of material facts and he had made contradictory statements because of which the learned Single Judge was contemplating taking action for perjury. Thus, by the impugned order, while the suit is dismissed as withdrawn but the learned Single Judge has refused to grant any leave to file fresh suit. At the same time, direction is also given by the learned Single Judge to proceed against Mahant Surendra Nath, his attorney Shri Satish Kumar and others who have allegedly committed perjury.

4. The plaintiff has filed RFA (OS) No. 3/2008 challenging the said judgment and his attorney Shri Satish Kumar has filed FAO (OS) 521/2007 seeking quashing of the directions to proceed against him for perjury.

5. Brief factual matrix of the case would be necessary to understand the issues involved.

6. The plaintiff/appellant Mahant Surendra Nath claims to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir. In the suit filed by him through his attorney, it was pleaded that he is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No. 629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No. 630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No. 633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur. Out of this total land, certain portions of the land were acquired by different awards by the Government of India in all the six khasra numbers. The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa and the plainti