REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 2214 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.2214 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 27, 2011 Major Singh .... Appellant Versus Tilak Raj & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.4. Remaining respondents ex parte. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Major Singh plaintiff No.1 has filed the instant second appeal after the plaintiffs i.e. appellant and his brother Jarnail Singh proforma respondent No.5/plaintiff No.2 partly succeeded in trial court but have been completely non-suited by the lower appellate court. Appellant and proforma respondent No.5 filed suit against respondents No.1 to 3 as the defendants. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendants No.1 and 2 and Sohan Lal father of defendant No.3 were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 2 Kanals and they through their attorney Gurmit Singh sold the suit land to the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 07.11.1988. Possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiffs at that time. Thus plaintiffs became owners of the suit land but the defendants i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 without any right, title or interest in the suit land REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 2214 of 2007 -2- threatened to interfere into possession of the plaintiffs thereon forcibly and illegally. Accordingly plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 2 Kanals. Plaintiffs also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Defendants No.1 to 3 admitted that previously defendants No.1, 2 and Sohan Lal father of defendant No.3 were owners of the suit land. It was, however, denied that they sold the suit land to plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 07.11.1988. Defendants pleaded that they never gave power of attorney to Gurmit Singh Alleged sale deed is illegal and null and void. It was denied that plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land on the basis of the said sale deed. Jamna Devi was impleaded as defendant No.4 on her application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now Jamna Devi is represented by her legal representative Vidhya Wati respondent No.4. Defendant No.4 denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that the suit land was owned by Shamlat Pati and was mortgaged with plaintiffs' father. Defendant No.4 being co-sharer got the mortgage redeemed vide Collector's order dated 03.06.1988. Possession of the redeemed land was also delivered to defendant No.4 by way of warrant of possession vide report dated 18.09.1988. Thereafter plaintiffs' father filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant No.4. The said suit was contested by legal representative of defendant No.4 and was dismissed. Jamna Devi herself filed suit for declaration regarding the suit land against plaintiffs and their father and also Gurmit Singh. During pendency of the said suit, plaintiffs and their father forcibly dispossessed defendant No.4 herein. The said suit was, however, REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 2214 of 2007 -3- decreed in favour of defendant No.4 herein. Said decree was upheld upto second appeal by this Court. Second appeal was dismissed on 09.07.1997. Immediately thereafter, instant suit was instituted on 01.09.1997. On the contrary, defendant No.4 had filed execution petition for execution of the decree passed in her suit mentioned hereinabove. The said execution petition was pending when written statement was filed in the instant case and warrant of possession had been issued in that case. It was denied that suit land was owned by defendants No.1 and 2 and Sohan Lal. Alleged power of attorney by them in favour of Gurmit Singh could not be proved in the previous suit. Alleged sale deed is of no value. Gurmit Singh had no right to execute the same as already held upto this Court. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land forcibly and illegally. Remaining part of the relief sought by the plaintiffs was declined. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2006 and in fact suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed in toto by the lower appellate court. Feeling aggrieved, only plaintiff No.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. This is classical instance which amply demonstrates that unsuccessful party after losing litigation can start another round of litigation and carry on the same endlessly. In the instant case, it appears to be fourth round of litigation. Initially case of redemption of mortgage was decided by REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 2214 of 2007 -4- Collector vide order dated 03.06.1988 and pursuant thereto, possession was delivered to defendant no.4. However, thereafter plaintiffs' father filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant No.4 but the said suit was dismissed. Then in the third round of litigation, Jamna Devi defendant No.4 succeeded upto second appeal in this court. However, immediately after dismissal of the said second appeal, plaintiffs filed the instant suit initiating fourth round of litigation. There cannot be a more stark example of abuse of process of the court by litigants. The instant litigation right from suit to this second appeal is completely frivolous and, therefore, this second appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost so as to curb the tendency of frivolous litigation on the part of some litigants. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiffs' vendors i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Sohan Lal were not party to the suit which was instituted by Jamna Devi defendant No.4. The contention is not only misconceived but completely frivolous and meritless, because the suit instituted by plaintiffs' father was dismissed on 16.03.1990 i.e. after the plaintiffs had already allegedly purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 07.11.1988 from defendants No.1 and 2 and Sohan Lal through their alleged attorney Gurmit Singh. Suit filed by Jamna Devi was also decreed much thereafter. In this view of the matter, even if defendants No.1 and 2 and Sohan Lal were not party to the previous litigation, it would not help the plaintiffs in the instant litigation because they themselves were party to the said litigation. The plaintiffs tried their luck upto second appeal in this Court but their second appeal was dismissed on 09.07.1997 by this court and soon thereafter, they started fresh round of litigation by filing the instant suit on 01.09.1997. Consequently, the plaintiffs have been rightly non-suited by the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 2214 of 2007 -5- lower appellate Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find 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 instant appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by appellant to contesting respondent No.4. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 27.01.2011 'raj'