REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1888 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1888 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Union of India .... Appellant Versus Ripudaman Kaur .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.5813-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 56 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No.5814-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.5815-C of 2010 This is application for placing on record documents Annexures A/1 to A/6. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant concedes that these documents are not part of the evidence in the courts below. Consequently, these documents cannot be taken on record in the instant second appeal. The application is completely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Main appeal: Plaintiff-Union of India having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1888 OF 2010 -2- The suit property is situated in Ferozepur Cantonment. The plaintiff alleged that plaintiff is owner of the entire land of the Cantonment including land underneath suit Bungalow No.50. Parcels of land in Cantonment were given to different persons to hold the same under certain conditions including resumption clause. However, ownership of the land continued in the name of plaintiff-Union of India. History of the suit land has also been traced. Having been granted in the year 1891 to Mr. A. Dinshaw, agreement dated 30.07.1891 was executed by him in favour plaintiff, admitting plaintiff's ownership and agreeing to occupy the suit land. Thereafter rights in the Bungalow were sold from one person to another and ultimately to the defendant-respondent Ripudaman Kaur. Plaintiff's further case is that every transferee/vendee has been executing requisite agreement in favour of the plaintiff admitting its ownership over the suit land. The defendant also executed similar registered deed dated 03.10.1953. The plaintiff resumed the Bungalow vide notice dated 18.06.1986/03.11.1986 sent along with cheque for Rs.41,633/- on account of value of the structure standing in the suit land. Defendant herein challenged the said resumption by filing civil suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 23.08.1990. However first appeal preferred by defendant herein was allowed vide judgment dated 30.05.1991, thereby holding the defendant herein to be owner of the suit property and resumption notice dated 03.11.1986 was held to be illegal and null and void. Regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff herein was dismissed on 16.01.1992 by this Court. Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the plaintiff herein was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and review petition was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. On these averments, the plaintiff-Union of India filed the instant suit seeking declaration of its title over the suit property. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1888 OF 2010 -3- Both the courts below have non-suited the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. From the averments made by the plaintiff-appellant itself, it is manifest that the instant suit is barred by res judicata and the plaintiff-Union of India is gravely abusing the process of the court by not only filing the suit but also by filing first appeal and the instant second appeal. It is plaintiff's own case that in the previous litigation, the plaintiff herein has lost up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been pleaded by appellant itself that defendant herein was held to be owner of the suit property in the previous litigation. It is completely beyond comprehension as to how the plaintiff can start this second round of litigation, seeking declaration that plaintiff is owner of the suit property, when the plaintiff's own case is that defendant herein has already been held owner of the suit property in the previous litigation as held up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid, without going into any other aspect of the case, I have no hesitation in concluding that the instant second appeal is not only meritless but is also completely frivolous. Central Government claims to have framed litigation policy to reduce the burden of the courts by avoiding unnecessary litigation by Union of India. However, instant litigation demonstrates that the said litigation policy is only on papers. On the basis of averments by the plaintiff-appellant itself, it is manifest that the instant suit filed by the appellant is patently barred by res judicata, but inspite thereof, the plaintiff-appellant opted to file the suit and also then opted to file first appeal as well as the instant second appeal. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1888 OF 2010 -4- In view of the aforesaid, a copy of this judgment be sent to Ministry of Law and Justice and also to Ministry of Defence, Union of India, to take some curative steps to avoid such frivolous and unnecessary litigation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 8th February, 2011 'raj'