JUDGMENT 1. - S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1317/99 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for deleting issue No. 4 framed in the suit No. 17/99. Three issues relating to res judicata, limitation and locus standi of the plaintiff was framed where as the 4th additional issue as framed was about the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The respondent ladies had appeared and had stated that 'for the reason that they, the defendants, are being harassed since so many decades and for expediating the suit had no objection if the issue No. 4 is to be deleted as desired by the opposite party, an order was passed accordingly. 3. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 44/2000 was moved in the revision petition with the prayer that for the reason that the plaintiff Abdul Rahman had lost his case right upto High Court and he had started third round of litigation, therefore, prayer was made for a direction to the civil court to decide the suit as early as possible. It was even mentioned by the applicant Prasony Bai that having been frustrated because of such type of litigation, she is even prepared to sell the land to the plaintiff at reasonable market price to end the litigation once for all. 4. While having arguments on the misc. application, this court was of the opinion that the judicial process is being abused by one or the other party and, therefore, this court had suo moto ordered that the record of the trial court be summoned immediately to pass appropriate order in this regard for which even the parties had no objections. 5. The parties were directed to give the complete details along with issues which were to be decided for the purpose of transferring the case to this court. Following are the facts. 5. The parties were directed to give the complete details along with issues which were to be decided for the purpose of transferring the case to this court. Following are the facts. (i) Mangal Singh and his daughter Prasony Bai were displaced persons from Pakistan; (ii) Mangal Singh was allotted land measuring 11 Bigha 16 Biswa in village Shorba Tehsil Kishangarh Bas District Alwar; (iii) Mangal Singh died; (iv) Prasony Bai started cultivating the land; (v) on 31.3.1978 Patwari made a report that Mangal Singh had died in-estate; (vi) on 12.3.1979 escheet proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar Kishangarhbas; (vii) On 28.3.1979 possession was taken by Patwari from Prasony Bai; (viii) On 11.5.1979 Tehsildar allotted some land to Abdul Rahman; (ix) on 24.8.1979 Additional Collector set aside the order of taking possession and restored possession to Parsony Bai and cancelled the allotment to Adbul Rahman; (x) On 5.11.1980 appeal filed by Abdul Rahman against the order dated 24.8.1979 was dismissed; (xi) Persony Bai agitated the matter against allotment of land to Abdul Rahman; (xii) On 11.5.1979 allotment in favour of Abdul Rehman was set aside; (xiii) Ultimately the matter went upto Board of Revenue; (xiv) On 28.11.1985 Board of Revenue decided the appeal in favour of Parsony Bai and maintained the order of cancellation of allotment to Abdul Rahman; (xv) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2274/85 filed by Abdul Rahman in the High Court against the order of Board of Revenue; (xvi) On 13.5.1993 writ petition was dismissed and the order of the Board of Revenue became final. (xvii) On 17.2.1985 sanad issued in favour of respondent Parsony Bai; (xviii) On 31.5.1993 mutation in favour of Parsony Bai was opened; (xix) the matter was agitated by Abdul Rahman; (xx) On 12.6.1996 Board of Revenue rejected revision of Abdul Rahman; (xxi) On 14.6.1999 review application was dismissed by Board of Revenue. 6. From the above narration of facts, the matter stood decided finally in regard to cancellation of allotment of Abdul Rahman and also mutations in favour of Parsony Bail; the litigation started in the year 1979 and ended on 14.6.1999 i.e. in two bouts of litigation. 7. 6. From the above narration of facts, the matter stood decided finally in regard to cancellation of allotment of Abdul Rahman and also mutations in favour of Parsony Bail; the litigation started in the year 1979 and ended on 14.6.1999 i.e. in two bouts of litigation. 7. Having failed in previous litigations, the present suit No. 17/99 has been filed by Abdul Rahman with the prayer to declare that Parsony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh and Sanad allotted to her in February 1986 is illegal and that the plaintiff Abdul Rahman is in adverse possession of the land in question. Following prayer has been made in the suit; (1) to declare that Parsony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh; (2) that the plaintiff is in adverse possession even during the life of Mangal Singh; (3) permanent injunction. The defendant Prasony Bai and Labh Singh had filed the reply stating therein all the facts. The following issues were framed by the trial court. (1) whether the dispute of the civil suit in question had already been decided and adjudicated upon by the courts and whether it is hit by the principles of res judicata; (2) Whether the suit is beyond limitation? (3) Whether the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit? Additional issue was framed on 10.8.1999. The plaintiff Abdul Rahman had filed a civil revision petition No. 1317/99 against the additional issue wherein stay of the proceedings was granted, but ultimately the revision, petition was dismissed as mentioned aforesaid on 24.10.2000. 8. Since then the matter stands where it was in the trial court. The facts; and the judgments passed by the authorities have not been disputed in regard to the same property and same issues. 9. In the order of Board of Revenue passed on 28.11.1985, the Board of Revenue had observed that in regard to allotment made to Abdul Rahman vide order dated 11.5.1979; (1) the order was passed behind the back of the party i.e. Parsony Bai; (2) that Tehsildar should not have allotted the land to Abdul Rahman without giving notice to persons in whose name the land already stood; (3) that it was therefore, clear that Tehsildar Kishangarhbas Harish Chandra had acted in most irresponsible manner while allotting the land to Abdul Rahman; and (4) that for the high-headedness the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the Tehsildar. 10. The Board of Revenue had set aside the order passed in favour of Abdul Rahman and had restored the orders dated 18.7.1979 passed by the Collector with the further direction that Tehsildar should be dealt with departmentally. 11. Import of the order of the Board of Revenue was that the land allotted in favour of Abdul Rahman stood cancelled and the action of the revenue authorities in depriving Parsony Bai Daughter of Mangal Singh from the land in question was adversely commented. The above-said order of the Board of Revenue was challenged before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2274/85. The Bench of this court had maintained the order passed by the Board of Revenue and dismissed the writ petition of Abdul Rahman. 12. Mutations were opened in the name of Parsony Bai. Abdul Rahman had lost his case in each and every court and ultimately in the Highest court of revenue i.e. Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue had upheld the orders of the courts below and dismissed the case of Abdul Rahman on 12.6.1996 as per the orders placed on record. Review application was filed before the Board of Revenue against the said order which too was dismissed. 13. After having lost in two bouts in the revenue courts and right upto High Court, the present plaintiff Abdul Rahman is still perhaps not satisfied and has filed the present suit virtually on the same facts and for the same relief which already stood adjudicated by the courts below for which a preliminary issue has already been framed by the court. 14. In my opinion, it is a fit case where the Inherent powers under section 151 r/w Section 24 CPC are required to be invoked by this court. The suit record had already been received in this court. After going through the pleadings and the admitted documents i.e. judgment and decree placed on record, I find that the matter is fully covered by the principles of res judicata. Parties have been litigating right from 1979 and it had culminated into two bouts of cases right upto High Court and again review application of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Board of Revenue in 1999. The plaintiff is definitely missing the process of law in the said case by filing and approaching the courts repeatedly on the same issues. 15. The plaintiff is definitely missing the process of law in the said case by filing and approaching the courts repeatedly on the same issues. 15. The preliminary issue to the effect whether the dispute to the present civil suit in question has already been decided and adjudicated by the court and is bar by the principles of res judicata, is fully answered by various orders and judgment passed by various courts and upheld right upto the High Court and, therefore, the issue stands decided against the plaintiff. It has already been decided by the court that Prasony Bai etc. were legally entitled to retain the land in their possession being the daughter of Mangal Singh. The escheat proceedings illegally initiated against Parsony Bai in regard to property of her father Mangal Singh have been rightly dropped and land restored to her. It was also decided by the courts that the present appellant was not entitled to the part of land out of the land allotted to him in question. The present plaintiff despite having lost two times on the same issue in regard to same property is still dropping the petitioner in the third round of litigation in the civil suit for declaration as mentioned above. 16. After transferring the record to this court and in view of admitted records and judgments, I hold that the matter in the suit stands fully covered by the principles of res judicata and the suit of the plaintiff is to be dismissed on that count with cost of Rs. 3,000/-. 17. It is unfortunate that for last 20 years, the respondent was not able to get the possession despite having been winning all the cases in the trial court. Concerned Tehsildar is directed to execute the orders by putting the defendant Parsony Bai in possession within a period of 15 days from receipt of a certified copy of this order. The report of execution shall be sent to this court. 18. The revision petition as well the suit filed by the revision petitioner are dismissed in view of the reasons and discussions mentioned above.Revision and suit dismissed. *******