PRAKASH TATIA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) THIS is glaring case of harassment of non-petitioners by the petitioner by abusing the process of Court, compelling the non-petitioners to face litigation even after 42 years of obtaining decree for possession by their ancestor.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that one Ram Chandra, ancestor of private non-petitioners, filed a suit for possession of an agricultural land measuring 18 Biga 9 Biswa of Khasra No. 60 of village Rohi Naurangsehar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu, against the petitioner of this writ petition in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratangarh in the year 1957 alleging that the non-petitioner forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff-Ram Chandra, therefore, decree for eviction be passed against the defendant-petitioner-Hari Ram. The suit was registered as Suit No. 111/57 but that was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Ratangarh, by the judgment and decree dated 30/08/1958. Ram Chandra preferred appeal against the decree dated 30/08/1958 before the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, which was registered as Appeal No. 183/58. The appeal of Ram Chandra was initially dismissed by the appellate Court but said dismissal was set aside in second appeal by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 25-1-1960 and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate Court. After remand, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal of Ram Chandra by the judgment and decree dated 22/08/1960. The appellate Court passed the decree for possession in favour of plaintiff-Ram Chandra against defendant-petitioner-Hari Ram. However, in this very judgment the pleas of the defendant-petitioner, he got the possession of the half land of Bhoor Bai through Karta, who was tenant of Bhoor Bai and half land deed executed by Bhoor Bai in favour of the petitioner. The appellate Court observed that Ram Chandra can only evicted by the person who let out the land to the Ram Chandra after rejecting the plea of petitioner that he got the land from Bhoor Bai or Karta. The person entitled to take possession from plaintiff-Ram Chandra, then he is required to follow the process of law for taking possession from Ram Chandra, but the petitioner had no right to dispossess the Ram Chandra from the land in dispute, therefore, he is to deliver possession to Ram Chandra. The petitioner preferred appeal against this decree dated 22-8-1960 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on 18-8-1969. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Board of Revenue because of settlement of dispute with Ram Chandra, which took place on 21-9-1962 (strangely ). However, the above decree dated 22-8-1960 attained the finality and these facts are not in dispute. After so many orders and judgments, the right of Ram Chandra to take possession from the defendant-Hari Ram petitioner became final and concluded.

( 4 ) IT appears from the facts of this case that deceased-Ram Chandra instituted execution petition to execute the decree passed in Rev. Suit No. 111/57 somewhere in or about the year 1963, therefore, Execution Case No. 6/63 was registered in which, after the death of Ram Chandra in the year 1973, legal representatives of deceased-Ram Chandra could get possession only in the year 1978. It appears that petitioner lodged another proceedings under Ss. 145 and 146, Cr. P. C. wherein the land in dispute was attached but due to handing over of possession of land to the L. R. of the deceased-Ram Chandra, (who are non-petitioners in this writ petition) in execution of the decree by competent Court, the proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. was dropped on 13-5-1982 and possession of the L. R. of the deceased-Ram Chandra continued and maintained.

( 5 ) AFTER about 23 years from the decree (22-8-1960) for eviction against present petitioner and appeal against which was dismissed