1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1867/2008 Bhola & Ors. Vs. Subhash & Ors. Date of Judgment : 19/11/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Gandhi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati Mr. V.S. Gurjar, for appellants. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1621/2008 of the appellants has been dismissed. The appellants filed a suit against the respondents praying for possession. The suit was decreed on 04.07.1970 by the Trial Court. The appeal was preferred, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.02.1999. Second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue which also came to be dismissed on 01.04.1999. Against the judgment of the Revenue Board, writ petition was preferred. The writ petition also came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2006. The litigation attained finality. 2 An Execution Application was filed by the decree holder for delivery of the possession. At this stage, the appellant filed a civil suit for injunction along with an application under Order 39 CPC for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the petitioners/appellants. The Trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 25.10.2007. The appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2008. This order was assailed by way of writ petition No.1621/2008 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing as under: "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, I find that the revenue suit for recovery of possession was filed by the recovery of possession was filed by the petitioners which was decreed by the learned SDO. The appeal preferred thereagainst before the Revenue Appellate Authority was dismissed vide its judgment dated 20.02.1999. The second appeal preferred by the petitioners was thereafter dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 01.04.1999. It was thereafter that the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court which too was rejected vide judgment dated 21.11.2006. The decree passed in favour of the respondents herein cannot therefore be allowed to be frustrated by issue of fresh injunction order which, even otherwise, has attained the finality as the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed by this Court on 21.11.2006 has not been challenged any further." 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, we find that the litigation between the parties attained finality as the judgment dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition has not been asssailed by the appellant. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners as the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as they have already lost the claim in the earlier suit wherein they were party. Learned counsel for the appelants concealed the fact of the earlier suit. No ground is made out for any interference in the order of the leanred Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Mahesh Bhagwati) J. (R.C. Gandhi)J. Mohit