JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition has been, following reliefs have claimed, which are quoted thus: "(i) By an appropriate order or direction the entire record regarding the costing of the impugned house may kindly be called for by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) By an appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to quote fair prices of the house and transfer the possession of the house to the petitioner immediately. (iii) By an appropriate order or direction the notice dated 4.3.2008 be declared to be illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (iv) By an appropriate order or direction exemplary cost may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner in view of the exorbitant rent being paid by the petitioner towards his housing needs due to irrational and illegal act of the respondents. (v) Any other order or direction may also be passed which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case." 2. It is stated by learned counsel for respondents that before approaching this Court, petitioner filed a civil suit raising same grievance apart from others. The suit was dismissed vide the order dated 26.04.2004 at Annex.R/1. Suppressing the aforesaid material facts, this writ petition has been filed. The petitioner cannot re-agitate the same issue before this Court rather he is liable to be prosecuted for filing wrong affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the controversy before the civil court was different then raised herein. Accordingly, it was not necessary for the petitioner to disclose such facts. Even the principle of res judicata does not apply, if it is presumed that petitioner has raised same controversy before the Civil Court, as issue remained undecided. Referring the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms. Hema Khanna v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors., reported in 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 655 , it is submitted that the housing board having not charged interest from others, was not allowed to charge interest from the petitioner therein. According to learned counsel for petitioner, revision in the price is on account of component of interest. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the order of the Civil Court shows that petitioner raised grievance regarding escalation of price. According to learned counsel for petitioner, revision in the price is on account of component of interest. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the order of the Civil Court shows that petitioner raised grievance regarding escalation of price. The suit therein was decided after framing the issues. The issue Nos.1 and 2 quoted thus: " 1- vk;k oknh ryoaMh] foKku uxj oYyHkokM+h dksVk ;kstuk esa U;wure 324 oxZehVj {ks=Qy dk iw.kZ fufeZr vkokl :0 2-10 yk[k dh dher ij izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh dks vkoafVr vkokl 2&ds&14 jaxckM+h dksVk dh ykxr :0 5]53]767@& voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ " 6. Perusal of the issues quoted above shows that issues are related to price claimed by the housing board. Perusal of the order passed by the Civil Court shows a decision thereupon. If at all, petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Court, he had a liberty to file an appeal. On account of failure to maintain an appeal, the order of the Civil Court attains finality. Looking to the facts aforesaid, it cannot be said that arguments and the grounds raised before the Civil Court remained undecided. 7. In light of the aforesaid, what I find is that writ petition has been filed with suppression of facts. The petitioner is trying to agitate for same grievance before this Court. The conduct of the petitioner speaks volumes against him rather he is guilty of filing false affidavit before this Court by suppressing facts regarding previous litigation. On the aforesaid ground itself, petitioner can be non-suited rather matter can be sent for his prosecution, however, taking note of the age of the petitioner being 80 years, I am not passing such an order. 8. Looking to the facts aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be given second inning to raise issues already decided in civil suit. Otherwise also, this Court cannot make assessment of the price of a house rather it can be done by the Civil Court or other appropriate forums. Petitioner having approached Civil Court and lost therein, could not maintain writ petition. 9. For all these reasons narrated above, I find no merit in this writ petition, hence the same is dismissed. Looking to the age of the petitioner, cost is made easy.Writ Petition dismissed. *******