R.S.A No. 3584 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3584 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Rameshwar and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Tehsildar (Sales) Panipat and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellants in its entirety. The trial Court had partly decreed the suit of the appellants and had directed respondents No.1 and 2 to allot alternate land to the appellants. The lower appellate Court, however, held that since the appellants had earlier filed a suit with respect to the same property, the present suit would be barred by res judicata. It is noteworthy to mention that the plea of res judicata was R.S.A No. 3584 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: negatived by the trial Court on the ground that in the earlier suit, respondents No.1 and 2 were not a party. The lower appellate Court rightly held that since respondents No.1 and 2 had no interest in the land in dispute, the fact that they were not a party in the previous suit would make no difference. The following questions have been proposed :- “ 1. Whether the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 are duty bound in law to ensure that the custodian land sold by them is having a clear title ? 2. Whether the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to allot suitable land to the plaintiff-appellants, who are vendors and, thus, successors in interest of the defendant-respondents No.7 and 8 inasmuch as the land sold by defendants No.1 and 2 to respondents No.7 and 8 could not be enjoyed by them as its title was defective ? 3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff- appellants is barred by the principle of res judicata even against defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 ? 4. Whether the findings on issues No.3 and 3(a) returned by the learned lower appellate Court are liable to be reversed and the findings of the trial Court are liable to be restored ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for as well as consequential relief of permanent injunction/mandatory injunction ?” R.S.A No. 3584 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: It would be seen that questions No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Even with regard to question No. (3), I find that the exposition of law of the lower appellate Court to the effect that since respondents No.1 and 2 had no interest in the property the fact that they were not a party in the earlier suit would make no difference, is unassailable. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 04, 2010. JUDGE `kk'