Judgments that have attained finality cannot be agitated repeatedly, and any order passed by the revenue authorities cannot be superior to that passed by the court. The imposition of exemplary costs for frivolous litigation is essential to deter such practices.

JUDGMENT :

Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)

The petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court in the suit instituted by the respondent herein to the effect that he is the owner in possession of three double storeyed shops having concrete slabs etc. comprised in Khata No. 22 min, Khatoni No. 53 min-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61-61-62-63-64-72-73- 76-77 Khasra No. 313/59/4/2 measuring 0-5 Marlas etc. adjoining the National Highway.

2. The pleadings are far from anything what is required in a case. It is pleaded that two judgments of this Court passed in RSA No. 80/94 decided on 15.11.1996 and RSA No. 309/99 decided on 22.4.2010 do not pertain to the shops of the plaintiff falling in Khasra No. 313/59/4/2 and the entries made during the settlement with respect to the shops are contrary to the revenue record and are wrong, inoperative against the interest of the plaintiff and subsequent jamabandies from 1991 upto 2007 are null and void for the reason that order in correction application No. (16)6/90/S.O. dated 01.08.1990 qua the said shops passed by the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala has been ignored by this Court. Two judgments of this Court rendered in RSA No. 80 of 1994 titled Mool Raj v. Govind Ram and others on 15th November, 1996 and RSA No. 309 of 1999 titled Manohar Lal Khullar and another v. Mool Raj decided on 22.4.2010 do not decide the controversy according to correct facts.

3. The petitioner who is the defendant pleads that RSA No. 80 of 1994 titled Mool Raj v. Govind Singh and others was instituted in this Court. One Manohar Lal Khullar was already a tenant in the property in dispute at the time of its sale to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted a petition for eviction of this tenant wherein the present respondent-plaintiff before the learned trial Court was also a party. The suit was resisted by the tenant on the ground that he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The stand of the plaintiff-respondent herein was that though the constructed shops was sold to the petitioner herein but by order dated 1.8.1990 passed by the Settlement Collector at Dharamshala it was held that Khasra No. 275 was outside the area sold to the petitioner. In RSA No. 80 of 1994 this Court noted that the appellant therein was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge whereby the appeal of the defendant therein was accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, II, Nurpur District Kangra was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court in the following terms:

"I hereby pass a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants permanently from raising any construction over upper portion or the shop situating in Khasra No. after settlement 275, measuring 0-00-21 HM (prior to settlement Khasra No. 313/59/4/1/) comprised in Khata No. 32 min, Khatauni No. 67 min, situating in Tikka and Mauza Jasuur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. I further pass a decree for mandatory injunction and against the defendants to the effect that any construction made on the upper portion of the shop in question, be demolished. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs."

This decree was upheld by this Court.

4. Another appeal titled Manohar Lal Khullar and another v. Mool Raj, being RSA No. 309 of 1999 was filed in this Court on the pleading that Mool Raj, plaintiff in the suit, had filed a suit for ejectment of shop comprised in Khasra No. 275 which was earlier Khasra No. 313/59/4/1 measuring 0-0-21 situated in Mohal and Mauza Jassur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra HP. Appellant Manohar pleaded that he was tenant in the shop which was later on purchased by him from Harnam Singh etc. There were nine settled issues. This Court, by its judgment dated 22nd April, 2010 noted the history of the previous litigation in RSA No. 80 of 1994 and inter-alia held that the plea of the plaintiff in the suit that he was in poss