IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2590 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 23, 2009 Balbir Singh …..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant and his two brothers was dismissed by the trial Court, which judgment and decree was upheld in appeal by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, the present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 18.4.1973, there was an auction in which the plaintiffs, i.e. the appellant and his two brothers, were the highest bidders. The said auction was cancelled on 18.3.1975 in view of the objections raised by the Gram Panchayat. The order of cancellation of the auction was challenged by the plaintiff and his two brothers by filing a petition in the High Court which was, however, dismissed. A civil suit was then filed R.S.A. No. 2590 of 2008 by the appellant and his two brothers as well as their father Ami Singh but the said suit was also dismissed on 19.11.1979. The present suit was filed in the year 1984 whereby, once again, order dated 18.3.1975 cancelling the auction was challenged. In view of the aforementioned facts, learned lower Courts were justified in holding that the suit was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and, therefore, the appellant and his two brothers were held to be not entitled to challenge the order dated 18.3.1975 by way of the present civil suit. The only submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff-appellant was minor at the time of the decision of the earlier suit and, therefore, the present suit filed by him could not have been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. Even if the plaintiff-appellant was minor at the time of the filing/decision of the earlier suit, still he can not claim benefit of his attaining the majority so as to challenge the order dated 18.3.1975. It is not he alone who filed the present suit but he was joined by his two brothers, namely, Karan Singh and Ranbir Singh for laying a challenge to the order dated 18.3.1975. These two brothers who were major then, had also joined the appellant in the earlier suit. Moreover, they were also joined by their father Ami Singh in filing the first suit. Under these -2- R.S.A. No. 2590 of 2008 circumstances, it could not be said that the present appellant was not bound by the decision of the earlier suit on account of his being minor at that time as his interest in the property was well represented and protected by his two brothers, who were major at that time, and also by his father. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below do not deserve to be reversed and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only if some substantial question of law is involved. In the present case no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises which may require determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 23, 2009 JUDGE satish -3-