JUDGMENT MR. JASBIR SINGH, J.: (ORAL) - C.M. NO. 1872 OF 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. C.M. stands disposed of. LPA No. 713 of 2011 3. The present case is a classic example as to how a chronic litigant can increase the workload of a Court. 4. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing CWP No. 16709 of 2010 filed by the petitioner (appellant herein). 5. The landlady Smt. Hardevi was a big land owner. Her entitlement to retain the land was assessed. Surplus area was declared and on that land, Ram Kishan and Tilak Ram, the ejected tenants, were settled vide order dated 21.03.1958. The tenants were again ordered to be ejected for non-payment of rent vide order dated 31.12.1969. They, in the meantime, filed an application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for purchase of the land which was under their tenancy. The competent officer in terms of the provisions of the Act allowed them to purchase that land vide order dated 28.10.1974. The landlady went in appeal which was dismissed on 12.12.1975. Her revision was also dismissed on 28.07.1976. Second revision filed before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana was also dismissed on 12.06.1978. The landlady came to this Court by filing CWP No. 3633 of 1978 and CWP No. 3634 of 1978, which were dismissed on 30.08.1979. The Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. In the meantime, the landlady also started litigation in the Civil Court. Her suit was dismissed. She went in appeal which was also dismissed on 27.04.1985 and 13.03.1987. Regular Second Appeal No. 2126 of 1987 was dismissed by this Court on 07.07.2009. Special Leave Petition No. 33847 of 2009 was dismissed on 16.12.2009. Thereafter, again litigation has been started by the appellants by filing CWP No. 16709 of 2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. 7. We feel that filing of the writ petition should have been avoided by her predecessors-in-interest. The grounds, which have been taken now, were very much available to the appellants when the earlier litigation was started. 7. We feel that filing of the writ petition should have been avoided by her predecessors-in-interest. The grounds, which have been taken now, were very much available to the appellants when the earlier litigation was started. A false excuse has been created by stating that the file, on the basis of which land was allotted to the tenants, was not available. We feel that the ground taken is palpably wrong. It is apparent from Annexure P-2 that surplus file was requisitioned by the Civil Court and it was available with it when civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The initiation of the present litigation was not warranted, such like tendency of the litigants is to be curbed. 8. In view of above, we dismiss this appeal with cost of Rs.50,000/-. The amount of cost be deposited with the Legal Services Committee of the High Court within a period of one month, failing which, the Secretary of the Legal Services Committee shall initiate the process to realize the amount. ----------0BSK0----------