The dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution renders the lower court's decree final, operating as res judicata and precluding the maintainability of remaining appeals involving the same subject matter to prevent the issuance of conflicting decrees.

Respondent No.3 proceeded against ex-parte and the name of

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. No.

respondent No.4 stands deleted in RSA No.365 of 2006.

Name of appellant No.2 stands deleted in RSA No. 366 of 2006

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una, HP (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge First Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking possession of one room measuring 18’ x 12’, situated in Khasra No. 1515 (old) and 4208 and 4209 (new) as recorded in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996-1997, situated at Village Basdehra, Brahmna, Tehsil and District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as suit land) and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land, changing its nature by raising any further construction and in the alternative for vacant possession by demolishing the structure.

3. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land. They constructed a pucca room on the suit land. The defendants, taking advantage of the plaintiffs’ absence, occupied the room. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to deliver possession of the room to them, but they refused. They threatened to raise construction on the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the suit being barred by res judicata, the plaintiffs being estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct, lack of locus standi, and the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the plaintiffs never remained in possession of the suit land. The revenue entries in their name are wrong, incorrect, illegal and against the facts. The defendants have been in possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. The room shown in orange in the site plan prepared by the Draughtsman marked DEFGHIJC forming part of the suit land is occupied by defendants No.1 and 2 as owners. The room and courtyard shown green, marked with the letters PQRS and QUR, are in possession of defendant No.3 as owner. An abadi consisting of two kucha kotha of predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 and 2 existed on the suit land, which fell during the heavy rain in the year 1988. The defendants No.1 and 2 constructed the room in place of the kuchha kotha shown by green and letters PQRS in the site plan. A kuchha khadposh ancestral abadi also existed on the suit land, which fell in the year 1988, and defendant No.3 constructed a tin posh room. The defendants wanted to replace the tin with a slab, and the plaintiffs filed a false suit to harass them. Roda and Khema, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, filed a Civil Suit No. 247 for possession of the suit land and abadis. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants made a statement