IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 182 of 1999 Date of Decision: 18.8.2011. Bhan Singh Appellant Versus Prithvi Raj & ors. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. N.K Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the earlier judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed in RSA No. 32 of 91 can be made basis to attract the applicability of principles of res judicata under Section II of the CPC in the present suit particularly when, admittedly the entire property/land sought to be partitioned was not the subject matter of adjudication and dispute in the earlier litigation? Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Whether in the absence of the pleadings, i.e. the plaint, written statement, replication of the earlier suit, can the plea of res judicata successfully be adjudicated by the court in the subsequent suit? 3. Whether the findings of partition made in a judgment between the parties in the earlier litigation qua part of the suit property be legally made basis in holding that the entire suit property stood partitioned between the parties particularly when part of the suit property had not been subject matter of earlier litigation? 4. Whether the findings of the learned court below are vitiated for misreading and misconstruction of the judgments passed by the Courts in the earlier litigation?” 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I am of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration at all. Neither there is any illegality nor any perversity, in the passing of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. At some stage all litigations must come to an end. 3. The Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff’s suit is barred by res judicata in view of the prior judgment and decree passed by this Court in RSA No. 32 of 1991 titled as Smt. Roshni Devi & others vs. Vijay Kumari & others in a lis inter-se 3 between the same parties and with respect to properties jointly owned by them. 4. In the earlier litigation the suit property was held to be in exclusive possession of the present respondents. Plaintiff’s instant suit for partition of the same by metes and bounds was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the lis between the parties with respect to the same already stands adjudicated in a prior litigation and as such subsequent suit was barred by res judicata . The Trial Court upheld the plea while specifically denied issue No. 3 in this regard. Based on the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed by them on record, trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit in terms of judgment and decree dated 5.2.1994 in case No. 171 of 1992 titled as Hoshiyar Singh & ors. Versus Prithvi Raj Singh & ors. The same stands affirmed in the defendants appeal by the District Judge, Mandi in judgment and decree dated 23.11.1998 impugned herein. 5. There is no dispute about the factual matrix. Earlier litigation between the parties stands proved on record by the defendants. The matter in issue stands already adjudicated in a prior litigation by this Court itself. The lower appellate Court in para 13,14,15,16 and 17 of the impugned judgment has clearly held the plaintiffs’ suit to be barred by principles of res-judicata. 6. From the record, it could not be shown as to how and in what manner the Courts below have returned the findings based 4 on erroneous appreciation of material or incorrect interpretation of provisions of law. 7. In fact question of law is no longer res-integra , they already stand settled by the Apex Court way back in the year 1994 itself. In this regard decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair (AIR 1994 S.C. 152) has been correctly appreciated, interpreted and applied to the instant facts. 8. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 18, 2011 (Priti)