The court emphasized that the petitioner's action was an abuse of the court process and that the dispute was a private matter, not a public interest litigation.

By Court.--Heard learnea counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner-Gossner Evangelical Lutheran (G.E.L.) Church has preferred this writ petition in the name of Public Interest Litigation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is the owner of the land in question over which a building has been constructed by the Builder, who has been granted lease on 17th June, 1988 by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Builder was granted permission to raise only two floors and near about 1991-92 construction of the two floors has been completed. However, the Builder in violation to the condition of the lease and the contract started constructing two more floors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now total G+3 construction is complete. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner raised objection before the several authorities at all relevant times but they are not taking any action, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ application, seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to investigate into the illegal allotment and collection of crores of rupees from the unauthorized and illegal allottees. The petitioner also prayed that matter may be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation.

3. The same petitioner approached this Court by filing an I.A. No. 994 of 2012 in W.P. (PIL) No. 1531 of 2011, wherein this Court (By us) vide order dated 5th July, 2012 observed as under:

"From the, facts stated above, it is clear that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court by moving this Court with such a private dispute between the owner of the property and the builder who was permitted to build a building over its own property. It is a pure civil dispute and it has nothing to do with public interest.

In view of the above reasons, I.A. No. 994 of 2012 is dismissed."

4. From the facts mentioned above itself, it is clear that admittedly the petitioner himself entered into a contract with the Builder-lessee and gave permission to construct the building. The petitioner might have given permission to construct two floors only but over a huge building two more floors were constructed by the Builder in the knowledge of the writ petitioner and its members. The petitioner had full opportunity to restrain them by taking legal course in time by filing a suit(s). If the local bodies were not giving ears to it's demand. The petitioner since long for number of years watching the construction and when two floors more have been constructed then petitioner approached this Court by filing one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 994 of 2012, wherein this Court has already, just about a month ago, held that it is clear case of misuse of process of Court and also it is not a Public Interest Litigation, yet petitioner has pressed this writ petition in the name of Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, it appears that petitioner can afford luxury of filing frivolous petition in the Court in quick succession.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation was filed on 29th July, 2011, whereas Interlocutory Application was filed in the year 2012.

5. Since the order was passed in I.A. No. 994 of 2012 prior to decision in the present W.P.(PIL) No. 4289 of 2011, then also it is settled law that if two matters are filed in the same Court on the basis of the same cause of action for the same relief, then in that situation the order judgment given earlier in time, irrespective of fact which of the matter was filed earlier, operates as res judicata. Inspite of the order dated 5th July, 2012, pressing of the writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 4289 of 2011 is also example of abuse of process of Court and petitioner, in fact, wants to question the finding recorded by this Court (By us) in the order dated 5th July, 2012 passed in I.A No. 994 of 2012, in a petition which may have been filed earlier. After the order