IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.12.2010 C.R.No.7928 of 2010 Ramji Lal ...Petitioner Versus Hari Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : M/s B.S.Bedi and J.S.Thind, Advocates, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court on 19.05.2010 and 22.09.2010 respectively, whereby an application for grant of ad interim injunction was dismissed. Respondent No.1 Hari Singh earlier filed a civil suit challenging the order passed by the authorities under Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) for declaration of land as surplus. The said suit was decreed on 03.11.1997. Said decree was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court on 24.10.2000. RSA bearing No.392 of 2001 filed by the State was dismissed by this Court on 03.07.2002. The SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.05.2009 with liberty to avail remedy, which may be available. The petitioner was party to those proceedings, but the suit of defendant No.1 stands decreed. Plaintiff filed the suit challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree for the reason that such decree is nullity in view of the fact that the C.R.No.7928 of 2010 jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 26 of the Act. The learned trial Court has allowed the said application and the decision on the said application has been affirmed by the learned District Judge as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Kiran Singh and others Vs. Chaman Paswan and others AIR 1954 Supreme Court 340 and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and another AIR 2005 (SC) 4446, to contend that if the decree is nullity, the plaintiff can challenge the same. It is argued that it is immaterial that the petitioner was a party to such proceedings, as the decree is nullity and such declaration can be obtained in a subsequent civil suit. In the earlier suit, the learned trial Court decreed the suit relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as State of Haryana Vs. Vinod Kumar 1986 PLJ 161. The learned trial Court has held that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act are illegal, null & void. The petitioner did not challenge the said judgment and decree before the first Appellate Court. In fact, it was the State, who filed an appeal, which was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the State was also dismissed. One of the issues framed in the said suit was regarding maintainability of the suit. There does not appear to be specific objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but the fact that the trial Court has decreed the suit on the basis of Full Bench judgment of this Court, wherein the issue regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court was examined in detail. It is not open to the petitioner now to say that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Since the petitioner was a party to the previous judgment and decree holding that the orders 2 C.R.No.7928 of 2010 passed by the authorities are null & void, it is not open to the petitioner to file a subsequent suit to avoid the judgment and decree, which has attained finality and in which the petitioner was a party. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In both the cases, an objection regarding the jurisdiction was taken in appeal. The objection regarding jurisdiction was not raised in subsequent proceedings permitting the decree to attain finality. Once the Civil Court has decided the issues between the parties, the said judgment and decree is binding on the parties. It is not open to the petitioner to ignore the said judgment and decree by filing a subsequent suit for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 07.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3