You can file perjury now, file an application u/s 192, 193, 195 of IPC read with section 340, 250, 357 of Cr.P.C.
If the opposite party or judge says it will be decided at the end you can make an argument on below mention judgements.
- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (the case of Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853,) it is held that, The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an “absurdity” that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily “thrown out at any stage of the litigation”.
2. Supreme Court (in the case Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, reported in JT 1994(7) SC 459) suo motu took contempt action against the husband and awarded him two weeks sentence of imprisonment. The Court held that those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-verification and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense. People would have faith in Courts when they would find that satyamev jayate (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there.
3.Supreme Court of India (in the case of Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors) held that those who do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and “it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final”.
4 Supreme Court of India (In the case of Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015,) held that “a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case”.
