Regular Second Appeal No.102 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.102 of 2003 Date of decision: April 08, 2008 Amar Singh Gill and others …..APPELLANTS Versus Municipal Committee, Morinda …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr Munish Bahl, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit for possession filed by the appellants that they were owners of land measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas, comprising in Khewat/Khatauni No.1469/1975, Khasra No.8159/3437 (2-11), Khewat/Khatauni No.1460/1958, Khasra No.6388/3440 (1-1) and Khewat/Khatauni No.1448/1917, Khasra No.3441 (0-17), situated within the area of Morinda, Tehsil and District Ropar, Hadbast No.254 as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1993-94, by removal of structures raised by the defendant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further raising any construction in the suit property, was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rup Nagar on 31.8.1999. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which met a similar fate on 18.7.2002 when it was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. They have now come up in second appeal before this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regular Second Appeal No.102 of 2003 -2- At the very out-set, learned counsel for the defendant- respondent has submitted that three identical suits were earlier filed, which were dismissed by learned trial Court and the first appeals preferred by the plaintiffs therein, dismissed and all those plaintiffs then filed three second appeals i.e. RSA No.2280 of 1994 (Piara Singh vs Municipal Committee, Morinda), RSA No.2281 of 1994 (The Morinda Cooperative Garden Society Ltd. Morinda vs Municipal Committee, Morinda), and RSA No.2282 of 1994 (Joginder Singh and another vs Municipal Committee, Morinda). All the three appeals came up for hearing before this Court on 30.9.1994. This Court found no case for interference and dismissed the same. Photocopies of orders dated 30.9.1994 have been produced for perusal. It was, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be also dismissed as the same involves identical questions of law and facts. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants submitted that such like plea was taken by the defendant-respondent before learned trial Court while filing the written statement and issue No.4 was framed as to whether the present suit was barred under the principles of res judicata or not. Learned trial Court had held that the defendant-respondent had failed to prove that the subject matter of the suit was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suits, besides the present suit and the earlier suits were not between the same parties or between the parties under whom they claimed. Accordingly, a finding was arrived at against the defendant-respondent. Regular Second Appeal No.102 of 2003 -3- Learned counsel for the appellants has not denied the dismissal of the aforementioned three second appeals. He has also not been able to show that the subject matter of the present suit was not directly or substantially in issue in the earlier suits which formed the basis of the aforementioned three second appeals. Though it is a fact that the parties in the earlier suits were not the same as in the present suit, but once the appellants are claiming an identical relief, which was claimed by the plaintiffs in the aforementioned second appeals and those appeals having been dismissed by this Court, it would be a travesty of justice to allow the plaintiffs/appellants to rake up an identical issue once again. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the aforementioned three second appeals were decided on 30.9.1994 and thereafter, the civil suit in the present case was filed on 21.7.1995. It is apparent that after having failed to obtain the relief from this Court in the aforementioned three second appeals, the affected persons have set up the present plaintiffs- appellants to agitate the matter once again by filing an independent suit, though for the same purpose, which was in the earlier suits giving rise to the aforementioned three appeals. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by learned lower Courts. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. April 08, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE