IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No.62 of 2011 Date of decision : August 9, 2011 Chandan and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : M/s N.K. Sharma & Ankit Goel, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) CMPM No.401/2011 Heard. Allowed. Civil Review No.62/2011 Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners, it appears, were granted certain land, under Nautor Rules, by the concerned authorities. That order of grant of nautor land was lateron cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 21.5.1984 and the said order was confirmed, in appeal, by the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 26.11.1985. Thereafter, petitioners’ predecessor filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.62/1 of 1987, alleging that on the strength of the alleged illegal order of cancellation of nautor land, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondent, i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh, had been threatening to dispossess petitioners’ predecessor. That suit was dismissed, as withdrawn. 3. Thereafter, petitioners’ predecessor filed another suit, being Civil Suit No.24/1 of 1988. In that suit also, besides seeking declaration that the order of cancellation of nautor was illegal, the relief, which was sought in the earlier suit also, relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought. In the subsequent suit also, it was stated that encouraged by the alleged illegal order of cancellation of nautor, defendant- respondent was threatening to dispossess petitioners’ predecessor. So, a decree of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was sought. 4. Subsequent suit was decreed by the trial Court. Appeal was preferred by the respondent-State against the decree of the trial Court in the Court of District Judge (first Appellate Court). That appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, Regular Second Appeal was filed in this Court. That appeal was accepted and the judgments and the decrees of the two Courts below were set aside, vide judgment dated 16.7.2010, of this Court, with the finding that the subsequent suit was barred, in view of the withdrawal of the earlier suit, per Order 23 Rules 1 & 4(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. …3… 5. Petitioners filed Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the aforesaid judgment of this Court. That petition has been dismissed, vide order dated 13.12.2010, in limini, that is to say without giving any reasons. 6. After the dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, petitioners have now filed the present Review Petition. 7. Submission, which has been made on behalf of the petitioners is that though in both the suits reliefs of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction had been sought, yet the causes of action in the two suits were different, in the sense that when the earlier suit was withdrawn, the threat of dispossession disappeared and thereafter fresh threat to disturb the possession of the petitioners was there. 8. I have been taken through the relevant portions of the plaints in the two suits. In both the plaints, it was alleged that the petitioners are sought to be dispossessed, on the strength of the alleged illegal order of cancellation of nautor. That means the foundation or the basis of the threat remained the same. It is the defendant-respondent, whose functionaries cancelled the nautor. Naturally, after the cancellation of nautor, defendant-respondent became entitled to possession of the nautor land. When they sought to take …4… possession, soon after the order of cancellation of nautor was passed by the Financial Commissioner, the earlier suit was filed. That suit was withdrawn, unconditionally, even without saying that threat had ceased to exist. In the second suit, the threat was again said to be based on the same alleged illegal order of cancellation of nautor. 9. As already noticed, defendant-respondent, after cancellation of the nautor, granted in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners, became entitled to possession. Order of cancellation of nautor has not been set aside by any authority and, therefore, defendant- respondent is entitled to take possession of the nautor land. Petitioners, who do not have any right, title or interest in the property, cannot seek any relief against the true owner, i.e. the respondent. In any case, the subsequent suit is barred, as already held in judgment dated 16.7.2010, because the cause of action in the earlier suit as also in the subsequent suit was the same, so far as the relief of injunction is concerned, because in both the suits it was pleaded that threat was being administered, on account of the passing of the order of cancellation of nautor. 10. Petitioners have been agitating the same cause of action, again and again, despite the fact that the controversy has come to an end, at least with regard to their relief for declaration, on account of withdrawal of the …5… earlier suit. Therefore, the present Review Petition is dismissed, with costs of `10,000/-. Costs shall be deposited in the concerned Head of Account of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Review Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 9, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J