Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Mr. S.R. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and carefully perused the record.

2. Through the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs :

“(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing/set-aside the impugned order dated 21.5.2015, passed by opposite party No. 1 in Regular Suit No. 337/2015 : Ram Shankar v. Suresh Chandra Mishra and others, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the Opposite Parties not to disturb and interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the land/house in question bearing Khata No. 8, Gata No. 6, Khasra No. 6, situated at Village Niyawa, Pargana-Haveli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad.

(III) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing/set-aside the proceeding of Reglar Suit No. 337/2015, Ram Shankar v. Suresh Chandra Mishra and others, pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division Faizabad as contained in Annexure 1 and 17 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.

(IV) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(V) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, in short, the facts of the case are that after a long drawn first round of litigation in respect of land situate in Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil and District Faizabad, which started in the year 1965 by the predecessor of the parties and spread into multiple litigation in different forums, now the second round of litigation has been initiated by the opposite party No. 3-Ram Shanker by filing a suit bearing No. 337 of 2015, before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faizabad, inter alia claiming for a decree to declare the previous decrees issued by the same Court to be null and void, to declare all the sale-deeds executed prior to 50 years back to be null and void, to issue a decree for demolition of the house of the petitioner.

4. It is said that though opposite party No. 3 has lost all the regular proceedings before Civil Court, appellate Court, revenue Court in regular side as well as in miscellaneous jurisdiction on earlier three occasions, therefore, proceeding of regular suit No. 337 of 2015 is neither maintainable nor admissible and is liable to be rejected at its initial stage. However, ignoring the aforesaid facts, the suit has been entertained by the trial Court and an ex parte order for issuing the commission vide its order dated 21.5.2015 have been passed without service of notice to the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 21.5.2015, opposite party No. 3 alongwith Court Amin, Advocates and unsocial elements are trying to forcefully enter into premises of the petitioner and has served a notice on 17.6.2015.

5. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order so far as it relates to issuing the commission and summoning the commission report for 2.7.2015 in Regular Suit No. 337 of 2015 has been passed in the second round of litigation initiated at the instance of the opposite party No. 3 on the same set of facts and grounds, on which two suits have been dismissed in the first round of litigation; the appeals against them have also been dismissed; and the matter have also been adjudicated finally upto the High Court, therefore, impugned proceedings are not only barred by the principle of res judicata and estoppel between the parties but are vitiated being per- se illegal, without jurisdiction and and are liable to be rejected at the thresh hold.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind