JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal has been filed by plaintiff-appellant assailing judgment and decrees of learned trial Judge and also of learned first appellate Court. 2. Since both the Courts have decided against him, it is relevant to observe that earlier respondent Sohan Lal filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. After service was duly effected upon present appellant, learned trial Judge decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.1995: " vr% okn oknh e; [kpkZ bl izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS fd fooknxzLr LFky rFkk oknh ds IykaV ij ftldk fooj.k okn i= ds en la[;k 3 esa fn;k x;k gS] ij izfroknhx.k fdlh izdkj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z djds mldh fLFkfr esa ifjorZu ugha djsa rFkk fLFkfr ;Fkkor~ cuk;s j[ksA ;fn izfroknhx.k us bl ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z dj fy;k gS rks izfroknhx.k dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og viuk fuekZ.k dk;Z Lo;a ds gtsZ&[kpZ ls rksM+ nsos 'ks"k vuqrks"k ds ckjs esa okn i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 3. Against the said judgment and decree, present appellant initially filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in favour of. respondent - Sohanlal which was dismissed by learned trial Judge -against which he preferred appeal that too was dismissed after giving opportunity of hearing to him. After the judgment and decree dated 27.9.1995 passed in favour of Sohan Lal, who is respondent in the instant case, has attained finality, the appellant filed a fresh suit for cancellation of decree and making ancillary prayers. The objection was raised that grievance which the appellant has raised once attained finality after due adjudication, the instant suit is barred by principles of res judicata in view of Section 11 of the Code. The objection was upheld and suit was dismissed by learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2003 - against which he preferred appeal that too has also been dismissed and plea of res judicata has also been upheld by the first appellate Court as well. 4. Counsel for appellant submits that even after his application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is rejected and appeal has also been dismissed, still he has a right to raise. grievance by filing a separate suit and with the assistance of counsel, this Court has also gone through the relief which the appellant has prayed in the instant suit. 5. Counsel for appellant submits that even after his application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is rejected and appeal has also been dismissed, still he has a right to raise. grievance by filing a separate suit and with the assistance of counsel, this Court has also gone through the relief which the appellant has prayed in the instant suit. 5. After going through the record and taking note of the submission made by counsel for appellant, it is only re-appreciation of evidence recorded before the Court below and there is no substantial question of law emerges fop-consideration in the instant appeal. 6. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******