Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Smt. Chandrawali ......... Appellant versus Mahabir Singh and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant Shri Arun Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of Rasta and claim to right of passage shown in red colour in the site plan Exhibit PW3/1, was dismissed. Apart from other findings, it has been found by the learned trial Court that earlier son of the plaintiff filed a suit claiming similar injunction but the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree Exhibit PX/5, though the learned trial Court found that the said judgment will not apply as res judicata as it is not between the same party. It was found that witnesses of the plaintiff had admitted that the disputed property is part of Khasra No. 29 which is of the defendants. Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 2007 [2] The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. It has also been found that a Local Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the plaintiff and the report of the said Local Commissioner does not support the stand of the plaintiff. It has been concluded that there is no evidence to hold that the plaintiff has been using the land shown in colour red as frontage of her house and consequently the present suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is no conclusive evidence on the part of the defendants to say that the disputed property form part of Khasra No. 29, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not sustainable. The said argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The proof of burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the disputed area is passage. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the said burden of proof. On the other hand, the witnesses of the plaintiff themselves have admitted that the disputed property may be part of Khasra No.29. The Local Commissioner appointed at the instance of plaintiff has also not supported the stand of the plaintiff. Still further, the previous judgment and decree in a suit filed by the son of the plaintiff may not operate res judicata but is a relevant fact to examine the contention raised by the appellant. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff after the appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the previous suit filed by her son was dismissed. It only shows that the process of the Court is sought to be abused by filing suits in respect of the same subject matter. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Courts Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 2007 [3] below which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 27, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE