JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present revision petition is filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against order dated 29.9.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division Court No.1 Una HP in civil suit No. 232 of 2014 whereby civil suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally under order XXIII rule I code of civil procedure 1908 and consequently application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants was also dismissed by learned Trial Court. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE: 2. Rakesh Singh and another plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from raising any sort of construction over suit land. In alternative relief of mandatory injunction also sought. It is pleaded that co-defendant No.1 is co-sharer in suit land and co-defendant No.2 is stranger to the suit land and co-defendant No.1 has no right to change existing nature of suit land by way of raising construction over suit land. It is further pleaded that co-defendant No.1 is daughter-in-law of co-defendant No.2. It is further pleaded that defendants are threatening to raise construction over suit land forcibly. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have requested the defendants not to raise construction over suit land but defendants did not accept the request of plaintiffs. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file suit and plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from Court. It is further pleaded that co-defendant No.1 is in separate possession of suit land. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs did not file correct site plan. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs lavelled false allegation against defendants. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. During the pendency of civil suit plaintiffs also filed application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 code of civil procedure 1908 for grant of ad interim injunction. Learned Trial Court granted ad interim injunction on dated 18.9.2014 and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua raising construction causing interference in any manner over suit land. Learned Trial Court further directed that compliance of order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be effected and thereafter show cause notice be issued to revisionists as to why order be not made absolute till disposal of civil suit. 5. Learned Trial Court further directed that compliance of order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be effected and thereafter show cause notice be issued to revisionists as to why order be not made absolute till disposal of civil suit. 5. Defendants filed response to application under order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 code of civil procedure 1908 and also filed application under section 151 code of civil procedure for initiating legal proceedings against plaintiffs for filing false affidavit in judicial proceedings. On dated 15.1.2015 learned Trial Court held that it is not expedient in the larger interest of justice to initiate any criminal proceedings against plaintiffs for few omissions and learned Trial Court restrained itself from passing any order under section 151 code of civil procedure 1908 and disposed of the application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants. 6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned Trial Court dated 15.1.2015 upon application filed by defendants under section 151 code of civil procedure 1908 defendants filed CMPMO No. 80 of 2015 before Hon'ble High Court of HP and the same was disposed of on 23.7.2015. Hon'ble High Court of HP vide order dated 23.7.2015 quashed order and directed learned Trial Court to consider and decide application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants afresh in accordance with law. Hon'ble High Court of HP also directed parties to appear before learned Trial Court on 3.9.2015. Thereafter parties appeared before learned Trial Court and thereafter learned Trial Court fixed application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants for consideration. On 29.9.2015 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiffs sought permission of Court to withdraw civil suit under order XXIII rule 1 CPC unconditionally. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of defendants submitted that although civil suit filed by plaintiffs be permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally but application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants in civil suit be kept pending for order. Learned Trial Court did not agree with the submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of defendants. Learned Trial Court held that if civil suit is withdrawn unconditionally under order XXIII rule I CPC then pending applications filed in civil suit would automatically be deemed to be dismissed. Thereafter learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants. 7. Learned Trial Court held that if civil suit is withdrawn unconditionally under order XXIII rule I CPC then pending applications filed in civil suit would automatically be deemed to be dismissed. Thereafter learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under section 151 CPC by defendants. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 29.9.2015 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed application of defendants filed under section 151 CPC in civil suit defendants filed present revision petition. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and also perused entire record carefully. 9. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition: 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?. 2. Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that non-revisionists filed false affidavit in judicial proceedings and learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality by way of not initiating legal proceeding against non-revisionists for filing false affidavit in judicial proceedings and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. The allegations against non-revisionists are that non-revisionists have committed offence of perjury by way of filing false affidavit in judicial proceedings. It is well settled law that whenever any false affidavit is filed in judicial proceedings then criminal complaint for perjury can be filed by concerned Judicial Officer only before competent authority of law. It is proved on record in present case that before passing order upon application filed under section 151 CPC on merits in civil suit plaintiffs have withdrawn civil suit under order XXIII rule 1 CPC unconditionally. 11. It is well settled law that right of withdrawal of suit unconditionally under order XXIII rule 1 CPC is unfettered right of plaintiffs. It is well settled law that defendants cannot insist that plaintiffs must be compelled to proceed with suit. Party which has initiated judicial proceedings is entitled to withdraw judicial proceedings at any stage of case unconditionally. It is well settled law that counter claim filed by defendants would be proceeded despite withdrawal of suit by plaintiffs under order VIII rule 6-D of CPC vide amendment in CPC w.e.f. 1.12.1977. Party which has initiated judicial proceedings is entitled to withdraw judicial proceedings at any stage of case unconditionally. It is well settled law that counter claim filed by defendants would be proceeded despite withdrawal of suit by plaintiffs under order VIII rule 6-D of CPC vide amendment in CPC w.e.f. 1.12.1977. It is well settled law that when main civil suit is withdrawn unconditionally under order XXIII rule 1 of code of civil procedure 1908 by plaintiffs then all miscellaneous applications filed in civil suit either by plaintiffs or defendants automatically becomes infructuous except counter claim filed by defendants under order VIII rule 6-A code of civil procedure 1908 as per provision of order VIII rule 6-D vide amendment w.e.f. 1.2.1977. Defendants did not file any counter claim under order VIII rule 6-A in the present suit. See AIR 1968 SC 111 title M/s Hulas Raj Vs. K.B.Bass. 12. It is well settled law that in revision petition High Court cannot set aside the order of learned Trial Court unless order of learned Trial Court is perverse ipso facto. See AIR 1991 SC 455 title Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1969 SC 580 title Indore Municipality Vs. K.N.Palsikar. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 title P.Udayani Devi Vs. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao. See AIR 2002 SC 1003 title Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that order of learned Trial Court is not perverse nor illegal. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Relief). 13. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned Trial Court along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application (s) if any also disposed of.