I have heard Mr. BN Sarmah, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. M Angami for the respondent 3 and Mr. EY Renthungo for respondents 1 and 2. 2. In this revision petition, the revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 24.6.98 restraining the revisionist from doing any developmental works in the premises of Sri Sri Shankar Parvati Kali Mandir at Purana Bazar. Admittedly, this order has been passed on the administration side. 3. It is contended by Mr. BN Sarmah that, in a civil suit namely, Civil Suit No. 6 of 1997 the title of Sri Sri Shankar Parvati Kali Mandir has been declared in favour of the revisionist by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner by its judgment and decree dated 15.10.97. It is an admitted fact that against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.97, no appeal or revision has been preferred by any party. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner by its order dated 15.10.97 in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1997 has attained it finality. 4. Although it has been faintly stated by Mr. M. Angami, learned counsel for the respondent that the respondents are not a party to the proceeding in Civil Suit No.6 of 1997, it appears in the judgment and decree itself that the present respondent No.3 was arrayed as defendant No.2 in Civil Suit No.6 of 1997. It is further submitted by Mr. M Angami that no notice was issued to the defendant and he was not aware of the pendency of the civil suit. If that is so, what could have been a ground for filing a revision or appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.97 which has not been done. 5. Coming to the present impugned order dated 24.6.98 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, it clearly appears that the impugned order has been passed by abusing the process of the Court inasmuch as by further order can be passed by any authority without being assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.10.97 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner in CS No. 6 of 1997. That judgment and decree dated 15.10.97 passed by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner in CS No.6 of 1997 has not been assailed in any Court being admitted fact any subsequent order passed in connection with the suit land decreed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner would be barred by the principle of res judicata. 6. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the impugned order dated 24.6.98 being without jurisdiction and abuse of the process of the Court it, is hereby quashed and set aside. This revision petition is accordingly allowed.