Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The question which arises for consideration, at the outset, is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not. The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. M. A No. 13306/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 340 read with Section 195(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting the criminal law into motion against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and any other person/persons for having committed the offences referred to in Section 195(b)(i) Cr. P.C.

2. Some facts would be necessary for us to determine the question of maintainability of this appeal and they are as follows. The plaintiff had filed CS(OS) 809/2010 seeking specific performance of a contract dated 26.05.2007 executed by and between the appellant/plaintiff and the defendant No.1/respondent No.1. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No.1 had filed a written statement wherein he had stated that he had sold the suit property bearing No. 284, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh, New Delhi to one Pushpa Mittal by an alleged agreement to sell dated 14.02.2008. Reliance had been placed by the said respondent upon a general power of attorney allegedly registered by him in favour of the said Mrs. Pushpa Mittal and one Mr. Rahul Mittal vide Book No. IV, Vol. 29, Serial No. 201 to 218, Serial No. 435 dated 18.03.2008 registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bingha, U.P. It was contended on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that upon an enquiry from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, the appellant/plaintiff had been informed that no such document had been registered in that office. The original application dated 05.07.2010, whereby the appellant/plaintiff had sought the confirmation from the office of the Sub- Registrar, Bingha, U.P along with a copy of the receipt dated 05.10.2010 indicating the inspection fee deposited for the said purpose, was enclosed along with the said Crl. M.A. 11306/2010.

3. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that respondent No.1/defendant No. 1 had thereby committed an offence under Section 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the proceedings in the Trial Court hearing the said civil suit [CS(OS) 809/2010]. Consequently, a prayer was made under Section 340 Cr. P.C for an enquiry and for submitting a complaint in writing.

4. We may point out that that application had been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 by the learned Single Judge holding as under:-

“This application also pertains to alleged perjury in respect of property No. 284, First Floor, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, which is not the subject matter of the present suit. Hence, application is dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed a gross error inasmuch as the said property No. 284 was, indeed, the subject matter of the present suit as it was part of the contract dated 26.05.2007 executed by and between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in respect of which the suit for specific performance had been filed. However, before we go into this aspect of the matter, a serious challenge has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 regarding the maintainability of the present appeal.

6. But, before we examine the question of maintainability, it would be appropriate to indicate that even when the appeal had come up for the first time before another Division Bench of this Court on 29.08.2011, that Bench had reserved orders on the question of admission. Thereafter, the order was delivered on 26.09.2011 whereby, the said Division Bench, after considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and after referring to Sections 340, 341 Cr. P.C and the decision of a