IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4079 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.12.2009 Ramesh and others .....Petitioners versus Wazir .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Surender Saini, Advocate, for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, whereby the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.578 of 1993 which was dismissed on 14.9.2000, have been “directed to get removed the encroachment so made by them over property No.431-B, within a period of 2 months failing which they are liable to be sent to civil imprisonment”. The petitioner-plaintiffs had filed the afore-stated civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against various persons including the respondent herein. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior C.R. No.4079 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Division), Sonepat, vide the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2000. Thereafter, the respondent, who was one of the defendants in the suit, moved a civil misc. application on 28.5.2001 in the said already decided suit, inter-alia, alleging that even after dismissal of their civil suit, the plaintiff-petitioners have encroached upon plot No.431-B, namely, one of the properties in dispute. The said application has been accepted by the Civil Court vide the impugned order, giving rise to this revision petition. Whether or not the misc. application moved by the respondent was maintainable, is the question that arises for consideration. Admittedly, no counter-claim was filed by the respondent and/or his co-defendants in the civil suit filed by the petitioners. No cross-suit was also filed by them. The findings returned by the Civil Court vide the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2000 are at the best, binding inter-se parties. If the petitioners have made any incroachment after the dismissal of their suit, as alleged, such an abortive act would give rise to a cause of action in favour of the respondent or his co-defendants to enable them to file a fresh civil suit only. Such later event could not be made basis to revive an already decided suit. After deciding the civil suit, the Civil Court had in fact become funtus-officio and could not have passed the impugned order which, for all intents and purposes, amounts to a decree of mandatory injunction issued against the plaintiff. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 12.6.2008 is set-aside, however, with liberty to the respondent and/or his co-defendants to file a separate civil suit, if so C.R. No.4079 of 2008 (O&M) 3 advised or required, on the same cause of action which led them to move the civil misc. application before the Civil Court. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo in every respect for a period of 6 months from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order, so as to enable the respondent and/or his co-defendants to approach the Civil Court meanwhile in terms of the liberty granted above and seek suitable ad-interim directions. Dasti. 17-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE