REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1230 OF 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.1230 OF 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 17, 2011 Mukhtiar Singh .... Appellant Versus Ajit & another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Mukhtiar Singh plaintiff, having failed in both the courts below, is in second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit property and had constructed four walls of a room, but defendants forcibly removed the said structure in plaintiff's absence. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the malba of the structure. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from dispossessing him illegally and forcibly therefrom. The defendants denied the plaint allegation. The defendants alleged that they are owners in possession of the suit property. It was also pleaded that previous suit by plaintiff against father of defendant No.1 and others already stands dismissed. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat vide judgment and decree 05.09.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit with cost of REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1230 OF 2010 (O&M) -2- Rs.3000/-. First appeal preferred by plaintiff stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that previous suit filed by the plaintiff related to 150 square yards area whereas the present suit relates to 350 square yards area and, therefore, the present suit is not barred by res judicata. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff filed suit against father of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and others. The Said suit was dismissed. Another suit was filed by plaintiff's son Shamsher Singh which was also dismissed. First appeals in both the said suits were also dismissed. Thereafter, instant third round of litigation has been started by the plaintiff. Both the previous suits were also regarding the present suit property, as is evident from the plaintiff's own cross-examination as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial court. Consequently, the aforesaid contention that previous suit filed by the plaintiff did not relate to the same suit property cannot be accepted. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to say anything regarding the suit filed by plaintiff's son Shamsher Singh which was also regarding the same suit property as admitted by the plaintiff himself in the witness box. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that the instant third round of litigation initiated by the plaintiff-appellant is complete abuse of process of the court. The plaintiff himself filed a suit previously and failed in the trial court and first appellate court. Thereafter plaintiff's son had filed suit and he also failed in both the courts. Thereafter the instant third round of litigation was REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1230 OF 2010 (O&M) -3- started. For this reason, trial court rightly imposed cost of Rs.3000/- on the plaintiff, while dismissing his suit. There is no merit in the instant second appeal, which is completely frivolous. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 17.01.2011 'raj'