Once an issue has been adjudicated in court, it cannot be re-litigated in later proceedings, maintaining the authority of previous judgments on the same matter.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure P3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur whereby the objections filed by the petitioners have been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is the petitioners who are the owners of the suit property and has submitted that there are documents of title in favour of the petitioners and that the property in question is situated in khasra No.268. It is submitted that thus, the objections filed by the present petitioners be allowed and the execution application filed by the respondent-landlord be dismissed.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. The present petitioners are the Judgment Debtors. The respondent-Paramjit Singh Marwaha had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the present petitioners along with other persons from the property in question. The said rent petition was filed in the year 2001. Vide judgment dated 01.04.2010, the ejectment petition was allowed and the petitioners along with other persons in the ejectment petition were directed to vacate the premises in question and to hand over the same to the respondent-landlord within a period of two months from the date of passing of the said order. In the said ejectment petition, the petitioners had disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and had also stated that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try the application and accordingly, issues No.1A and ID were framed. The stand of the petitioners even before the Rent Controller was to the effect that it is the present petitioners who are the owners of the property. After considering the entire evidence on record and also the earlier judgment passed in an earlier case, in which it was held that it was the father of the respondent-Paramjit Singh Marwaha who was the owner of the property in question, the Rent Controller had decided both the said material issues i.e., issues No.1A and ID in favour of the respondent-landlord and had ordered the eviction.

5. The petitioners No.1 and 2 had filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 and on 18.03.2014, the said appeal was dismissed. In para 14 of the said judgment, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners No.l & 2 to the effect that it is the petitioners who are the owners of the property in question on the basis of documents produced by them was considered by the First Appellate Court and it was observed that the present petitioners (appellants before the Appellate Authority) had not been able to prove that the property which was the subject matter of the eviction petition bears Khasra No.268 and that the said property is the same property which is subject matter of the sale deeds Ex.Dl to Ex.D3 produced on behalf of the present petitioners. Reference was also made to the cross-examination of DW2, who had admitted that khokha, which was the property in question, belonged to Hukam Singh who was the father of the respondent-landlord and that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners used to pay rent to Hukam Singh and thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant was duly established. The First Appellate Court had