CSA 410/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.410/06 Sita Ram Versus Gram Panchayat Natata & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 22/01/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. R.K. Daga, for appellant *** Instant appeal has been filed by plaintiff- appellant assailing judgment & decrees of learned trial Judge and also of learned first appellate court. Since both the courts have decided against him, it is relevant to observe that earlier respondent Sohan Lal filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. After service was duly effected upon present appellant, learned trial Judge decreed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 27th September, 1995: "अत: वाद वादी मय खचार् इस ूकार से िडबी िकया जाता हैं िक िववादमः त ः थल तथा वादी के प् लाट पर िजसका िववरण वाद पऽ के मद संख् या-3 में िदया गया है, पर ूितवादीगण िकसी ूकार का िनमाणर् कायर् करके उसकी िः थित में पिरवतर्न नहीं करें तथा िः थित यथावत बनाये रखे। यिद ूितवादीगण ने इस पर कोई िनमाणर् कायर् कर िलया हैं तो ूितवादीगण को आदेश िदया जाता है िक वह CSA 410/06 [2] अपना िनमाणर् कायर् ः वंय के हजȶ-खचȶ से तोड़ देवें शेष अनुतोष के बारे में वाद पऽ खािरज िकया जाता हैं।" Against the said judgment & decree, present appellant initially filed application U/O.9 R.13 for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in favour of respondent-Sohanlal which was dismissed by learned trial Judge – against which he preferred appeal that too was dismissed after giving opportunity of hearing to him. After the judgment & decree dated 27th September, 1995 passed in favour of Sohan Lal, who is respondent in the instant case, has attained finality, the appellant filed a fresh suit for cancellation of decree and making ancillary prayers. The objection was raised that grievance which the appellant has raised once attained finality after due adjudication, the instant suit is barred by principles of res judicata in view of Section 11 of the Code. The objection was upheld and suit was dismissed by learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11th March, 2003 – against which he preferred appeal that too has also been dismissed and plea of res judicata has also been upheld by the first appellate court as well. Counsel for appellant submits that even after his application U/O 9 R.13 CPC is rejected and appeal has also been dismissed, still he has a right to raise grievance by filing a separate suit and with the assistance of counsel, this CSA 410/06 [3] court has also gone through the relief which the appellant has prayed in the instant suit. After going through the record and taking note of the submission made by counsel for appellant, it is only re-appreciation of evidence recorded before the court below and there is no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in the instant appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J. FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.410CSA2006 22-1.doc