SATISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(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 Thus, by the impugned order, while the suit is dismissed as withdrawn but the learned Single Judge has refused to grant any leave to file fresh suit.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.