IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.527 of 2006 Decided on : December 1, 2006 Harnam Singh and others ....Appellants. VERSUS Mela Ram and others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Nemo. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that they, having purchased the mortgagee’s rights in respect of the suit land and also mortgagor’s rights in respect of a part of the suit land, i.e. to the extent of 3/4th share, had the right to remain in possession of the suit land, on account of the merger of mortgagee’s and mortgagor’s rights and that preliminary decree obtained by respondents-defendants No.1 to 6, in Civil Suit No.131 of 1969, whereby redemption of mortgage, to the extent of 1/4th share, has been ordered, is a nullity. They sought the relief of injunction alleging that on the strength of the aforesaid preliminary decree respondents No.1 to 6 were threatening to dispossess them. 3. Respondents-defendants raised a number of pleas, one of which was that the suit was barred by the rule of resjudicata, under Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Section 11 CPC, and also the principle enshrined in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 4. Trial Court upheld the plea of the respondents. It dismissed the plea of the appellants-plaintiffs that the preliminary decree passed in Civil Suit No.131 of 1969 was illegal, null and void. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Appeal carried to the Court of District Judge by the appellants-plaintiffs also stands dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has submitted that in the garb of the preliminary decree, the respondents are threatening to dispossess the appellants-plaintiffs and, therefore, they are entitled to the relief of injunction atleast. I find no merit in the submission. In a mortgage suit preliminary decree is passed directing the mortgagor to deposit the mortgage money within given period and after the money is deposited, final decree is passed on the request of the decree-holder for possession. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs admits that final decree has been passed and execution is pending. If it is so, the suit filed by the appellants- plaintiffs is nothing but an attempt to defeat the final decree passed in the aforesaid suit for redemption of mortgage. 6. Since no substantial question of law arises, the appeal is dismissed. CMP No.943/2006 Infructuous. December 1, 2006(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.