IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4437 of 2009. Date of Decision: 20th March, 2009. Ram Saran Dass & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to grant them 'compensation' for violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which, according to them, have been violated “due to faulty system”. Alternatively, they want to be granted liberty to institute a fresh civil suit on “the same cause of action”. Suffice it to observe that the petitioners are relentless, habitual and incorrigible litigants. Their father – late Chuni Lal migrated to India in the year 1947 and was allotted lands in lieu of the properties left by him in Pakistan. The said Chuni Lal sold a substantial part of the allotted property in the year 1971 allegedly without any legal necessity or consent of the co-parceners of the Joint Hindu Family. The plaintiffs filed 27 Civil Suits challenging those sale transactions and lost the same up to the High Court. 27 SLPs were filed by them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of which 26 were dismissed on 31.8.1984, whereas leave was granted in one SLP. The said 27th SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No.4484 of 1985. The petitioners filed 26 Review Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those SLPs which were dismissed on 31.8.1984. The Review Petitions were, however, dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 4484 of 1985 then came up for hearing and was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations on 1.5.1986:- “On behalf of the appellants, it was urged that so far this appeal is concerned, they have filed a document before this Court which supports their claim made in the plaint and that document should be admitted as additional evidence by this Court. We are not inclined to pass any such order. If any additional document or evidence had to be brought on record that should have been brought on record before the appellate court after complying with the condition prescribed by Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to us the present appeal is no way different from the other 26 which have admittedly been dismissed by this Court”. The petitioners thereafter moved Review Application in RSA No. 613 of 1972 which was also dismissed by this Court on 10.9.1999. Their SLP No. 7243 of 2000 against the order in review was also dismissed in limine on 27.11.2007. The petitioners still filed a Review Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which too was dismissed on 13.2.2008. Leaving no chance, the petitioners went ahead with a Curative Petition [C] No. 107 of 2008 and that has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.11.2008. Undeterred by the spate of dismissals, they have now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking the reliefs as noticed above. The solitary justification given in support of their one after the other salvo is that after the dismissal of 26 SLPS by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.8.1984, the petitioners have been able to lay hands to the 'revenue records' of their ancestral properties left in Pakistan which establish beyond doubt that the properties allotted to their father – deceased Chuni Lal were only in lieu of the ancestral properties left by him in Pakistan. According to the petitioners, had the aforementioned piece of evidence been available with them during the pendency of the civil suit, they would have proved that since the lands allotted to their father were in lieu of the ancestral properties left by him in Pakistan, the allotted properties were also of ancestral nature and could not have been disposed of by their father without any legal necessity and/or consent of the coparceners. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is totally frivolous and is meant to harass the private respondents. It is one of the well known cardinal principle of law that every lis must attain finality. The petitioners having lost their civil suits up to the highest court of the land, followed by rejection of their Review and Curative Petitions, they ought to have reconciled with the fate of the litigation instead of pretending one or the other reason to burden this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court with this kind of baseless or scandelous litigation. Though, it is a fit case to burden the petitioners with exemplary costs, however, taking a lenient view, I am inclined to grant them this as a last opportunity to mend their ways. Dismissed. March 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE