Lakhwinder Singh and Others vs Akki Bai and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs-Lakhwinder Singh etc. have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge orders of both the courts below having failed to secure temporary injunction from the Courts below. I need not go into detailed facts of the case. Suit filed by defendants No. 13 to 15 against Dalip Singh (father and predecessor of the present petitioners who claim through Dalip Singh) was decreed for possession of the suit land by the trial Court and the said decree was upheld in first appeal as well as in second appeal by this Court. Defendants No. 13 to 15 have filed execution petition for execution of the said decree.

Petitioners herein have now filed a fresh suit claiming various reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners sought temporary injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit and from interfering in their possession thereon.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 24.01.2012 dismissed the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction. Appeal against the same preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the suit land was never allotted to Jindu Ram and, therefore, defendants No. 13 to 15 having allegedly purchased the suit land from heirs of Jindu Ram did not derive any right, title or interest in the suit land. Counsel for the petitioners also cited various judgments of Hon''ble the Supreme Court namely S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and Others reported as 1995 (1) PLR 293, Hamza Haji versus State of Kerala reported as 2006 (4) CCC 407 (SC), Meghmala & Others versus G. Narasimha Reddy & Others reported as 2011 (3) CCC 006 (SC), M. T. W. Tenzing Namgyal & Others versus Motilal Lakhotia & Others reported as 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 766 and judgments of this Court namely Madan Lal and Another versus Rajesh Kumar (Dead) through Lrs reported as 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 72, Battan Singh and Others versus Smt. Rakhi 1982 L.L.R. 463 and also unreported judgment dated 15.02.1973 of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1239 of 1972 titled Smt. Shiv Devi widow of Sham Dass & Others versus Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab & Another.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same are completely frivolous and meritless. Defendants No. 13 to 15 have already succeeded up to this Court in securing decree for possession of the suit land against predecessor of the present plaintiffs/petitioners. Consequently petitioners are also bound by the said decree. Now the petitioners cannot plead that the said decree was passed on incorrect facts or evidence. Challenge to the said decree on this ground is barred by res judicata. There has to be some end to the litigation. If such repeated frivolous suits are allowed to be instituted, there will be no end to litigation. The plaintiffs are resorting to this litigation because they are in possession of the suit land measuring 248 Kanals 19 Marlas i.e. more than 31 acres and they want to perpetuate their unauthorized possession thereon in spite of decree for possession passed against them. Defendants No. 13 to 15 cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in their favour.

It is thus writ large that entire claim of the plaintiffs in the instant suit is frivolous, misconceived and meritless and is also hit by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs want to perpetuate their unauthorized possession without any right to do so in spite of decree for possession having been passed against their predecessor. Consequently, temporary injunction has been rightly declined to the petitioners by both the courts below. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Courts below. Judgments cited by counsel for petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case. The instant revision petition is not only meritless but is also completely frivolous.

Such frivolous litigation has to be discouraged and curbed with strong hands. Frivolous cases are clogging the courts thereby resulting in delay in disposal of real disputes. Such litigants resorting to frivolous litigation have to be subjected to exemplary cost. Accordingly the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine with exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited by the petitioners with the registry of this Court within on month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose.