JUDGMENT : - P.S.Rana, J. Judgment: Both these appeals are consolidated together and are being disposed of by common judgment because both appeals have been filed against the same judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court and common questions of law and facts are involved in both appeals. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that plaintiff Ganga Ram filed suit for prohibitory injunction against defendants not to interfere in the suit land in any manner and not to dispossess the plaintiff except due process of law from suit land measuring 1-8 bigha comprised in Khasra No.338/268 khewat/khatoni No.60/69 situated in village Behl Nawane Pargana Sariun Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP. It is further pleaded that plaintiff was owner in possession of land measuring 1-8 bighas comprised in khasra No. 734/33 situated in village Churari pargana Sariun Teshsil Ghumarwin. It is further pleaded that plaintiff had applied before Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur for the exchange of land with the land of Government measuring 1-8 bighas. It is further pleaded that thereafter plaintiff became owner in possession of suit land by way of exchange. It is further pleaded that on dated 16.9.1991 Patwari Halqua Talyana informed the plaintiff that he had received orders from Tehsildar Ghumarwin that plaintiff would be evicted by way of force from suit land immediately. It is further pleaded that thereafter plaintiff applied for the copy of order of Tehsildar Ghumarwin and got the same on 25.9.1991. It is further pleaded that plaintiff who was owner in possession of the suit land by way of exchange could not be thrown out of the suit land forcibly except due process of law. Prayer for the decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Defendant did not file any reply despite several opportunities granted by learned trial Court and thereafter learned trial Court vide order dated 26.11.1992 struck of the defence of the defendants under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Learned the then Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 330/1 of 1991 decided on 27.1.1995 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP and others decreed the suit filed by plaintiff and held that plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law. 4. Learned the then Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 330/1 of 1991 decided on 27.1.1995 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP and others decreed the suit filed by plaintiff and held that plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court State of HP filed Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1995 titled State of HP Vs. Ganga Ram. Thereafter deceased Jiunu Ram also sought permission from learned District Judge Bilaspur HP to file appeal which was granted and appeal of Jiunu Ram was registered as Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 titled Jiunu Ram Vs. Ganga Ram. 5. Thereafter learned District Judge Bilaspur disposed of Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1995 titled State of HP Vs. Ganga Ram and Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 titled Jiunu Ram Vs. Ganga Ram together holding that common questions of law and facts are involved in both appeals. Learned District Judge Bilaspur HP on dated 09.12.2002 allowed Civil Appeal No.50 of 1995 titled State of HP Vs. Ganga Ram and also allowed Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 titled Jiunu Ram Vs. Ganga Ram by same judgment and decree. Learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff deceased Ganga Ram with costs. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court deceased Ganga Ram filed both present appeals. Hon’ble High Court of HP framed following substantial questions of law in RSA No. 44 of 2003 on dated 25.2.2003: 1. Whether the judgment of reversal by the learned first appellate Court is result of non-consideration of material documentary evidence?. 2.Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court is result of the consideration of documents, which were not part of the record?. 7. Hon’ble High Court of HP vide order dated 13.8.2003 framed following substantial questions of law in RSA No. 71 of 2003. 1. Whether a person who is not a party to the suit can lawfully maintain an appeal? 2. Whether the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court is result of the consideration of the documents which were not part of the record? Oral evidence adduced by deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram: 8. 1. Whether a person who is not a party to the suit can lawfully maintain an appeal? 2. Whether the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court is result of the consideration of the documents which were not part of the record? Oral evidence adduced by deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram: 8. PW1 Ganga Ram has stated that the area of the suit land is 1-8 bighas. He has stated that suit land was given to him by way of exchange on dated 5.1.1977 as nautor. He has stated that he has given his own land in exchange measuring 1-8 Bighas. He has stated that suit land is in his possession. He has stated that he is cultivating the suit land since 1977 and also sown maize crops. He has stated that mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. He has further stated that in the year 1991 Halqua Patwari called him and threatened that he would dispossess plaintiff from suit land forcibly and also asked the deceased plaintiff to vacate the suit land. He has stated that Halqua Patwari informed deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram that he had received the order from Tehsildar. He has stated that thereafter he inquired from the office of Tehsildar but it was informed to him that Tehsildar had not passed any or der. In cross-examination he has stated that he has also filed civil suit qua same property earlier. He has stated that he does not know that civil suit was decided against him. He has stated that he does not know that decision of the Civil Suit was announced on dated 24.9.1987. He denied suggestion that he has filed false subsequent civil suit without any cause of action. 8.1 PW2 Nathu Ram has stated that he has seen the suit land. He has stated that area of the suit land is 1-8 bighas. He has stated that plaintiff received the suit land by way of exchange from the State Government. He has stated that plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit land. He has stated that plaintiff has also sown the crop of maize in the suit land. In cross examination he has stated that he does not know about Khasra number. He has stated that he does not know that former civil suit was also filed qua the suit land by deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram. He has stated that plaintiff has also sown the crop of maize in the suit land. In cross examination he has stated that he does not know about Khasra number. He has stated that he does not know that former civil suit was also filed qua the suit land by deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram. He has stated that he received information that matter was also decided by the Deputy Commissioner and Financial Commissioner qua the suit property. He denied suggestion that deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram had no title in the suit property. 8.2 PW3 Dhanu Ram has stated that he has seen the suit land. He has stated that plaintiff is cultivating the suit land since 1977 and has sown the crop of maize. He has stated that plaintiff has given the land in exchange to the State Government. He denied suggestion that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. He also denied suggestion that plaintiff has no title in the suit land. Finding upon substantial question of law No.1 framed in RSA No.44 of 2003. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that judgment of reversal passed by learned first appellate Court is the result of non-consideration of material documentary evidence placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that civil suit for prohibitory injunction was filed by deceased Ganga Ram against State of HP through Collector Bilaspur (2) Tehsildar Ghumarwin (3) Patwari Halqua Talyana Tehsil Ghumarwin. It is proved on record that thereafter learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by deceased Ganga Ram. It is proved on record that thereafter Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1995 titled State of HP Vs. Ganga Ram was filed by State of HP against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court under Section 96 CPC. It is proved on record that thereafter during the pendency of Civil Appeal No.50 of 1995 Sh Jiunu Ram son of Sh Kapuru Ram also filed Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 330/1 of 1991. It is also proved on record that thereafter Jiunu Ram filed Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 titled Jiunu Ram Vs. Ganga Ram. It is also proved on record that thereafter Jiunu Ram filed Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 titled Jiunu Ram Vs. Ganga Ram. Learned first appellate Court granted leave to appeal under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC. It is proved on record that deceased Ganga Ram has also filed former Civil Suit No.110/1 of 1984 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP through Collector Bilaspur which was decided on 24.9.1987 by then learned Civil Judge Ghumarwin and in former Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 1984 following issues were framed by civil Court. 1.Whether the order of learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner dated 14.11.1980, 3.10.1983 and 20.10.1983 while canceling the grant are illegal and wrong?. …OPP. 2.Whether the plaintiff has improved the land after spending Rs.5,000/-? …OPP. 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable? …OPD 4.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? …OPD. 5.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPD. 6.Whether the legal and valid notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the defendant/State? …OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ..OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit?. …OPD. 9.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? …OPD. 10. Relief. 10. Learned Civil Judge Ist class Ghumarwin on dated 24.9.1987 dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff for declaration and injunction qua the suit land. It is proved on record that same subject matter was involved in former civil suit No. 110/1 of 1984 filed by deceased Ganga Ram and in subsequent civil suit No. 330/1 of 1991 filed by deceased Ganga Ram. In the former civil suit No. 110/1 of 1984 deceased Ganga Ram had challenged the order of learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner qua cancellation of exchange order of land and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff did not file appeal against the judgment and decree passed by then learned Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin qua judgment and decree relating to Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 1984 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP. It is held that constructive resjudicata operate against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was legally barred to file subsequent civil suit qua same subject matter which was already stood decided by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP in civil suit No. 110/1 of 1984. State of HP. It is held that constructive resjudicata operate against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was legally barred to file subsequent civil suit qua same subject matter which was already stood decided by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP in civil suit No. 110/1 of 1984. It is proved on record that exchange of suit land stood cancelled by competent authority of law i.e. District Collector Bilaspur. It is also proved on record that order of District Collector Bilaspur qua cancellation of exchange of land in favour of plaintiff affirmed by learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. Therefore it is held that learned first appellate Court has properly considered the evidence placed on record. Finding upon substantial question of law No.2 framed in RSA No.44 of 2003. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that finding of learned first appellate Court is result of the consideration of the documents which were not part of the record of learned trial Court is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Learned first appellate Court has considered the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 1984 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP decided on 24.9.1987 and learned first appellate Court has accepted the appeal on the basis of judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 1984 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP. It is well settled law that judgment and decree passed by civil Court is per se admissible under Indian Evidence Act. It is also well settled law that Court can take judicial notice qua certified copies of judgment and decree of civil Court suo-moto. Hence it is held that learned first appellate Court has taken judicial notice of judgment and decree passed by the then Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 1984 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP in the ends of justice. Finding upon substantial question of law No.1 framed in RSA No. 71 of 2003. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Jiunu Ram was not party to Civil Suit No. 330 /1 of 1991 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP in the ends of justice. Finding upon substantial question of law No.1 framed in RSA No. 71 of 2003. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Jiunu Ram was not party to Civil Suit No. 330 /1 of 1991 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP and he was legally not competent to file Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 titled Juunu Ram Vs. Ganga Ram is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram filed application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC for granting leave to file appeal titled Bhagat Ram and others Vs. Ganga Ram and others. Sh Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram pleaded in application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC that Sh Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram were objector along with other right holders qua exchange of land in favour of deceased Ganga Ram plaintiff before learned Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur. Sh Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram pleaded in application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC that upon the objection raised by Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram the order of exchange of suit land in favour of deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram was cancelled by learned Deputy Commissioner in the interest of general public because immovable land of general public path and water facilities of general public was given to deceased Ganga Ram in exchange. It is further pleaded by Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram in application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC that school going children also used to go through the land which was given in exchange to deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram. It is also proved on record that upon the objections filed by Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram the suit land given in exchange to deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram was cancelled by learned Deputy Commissioner and it proved on record that thereafter deceased plaintiff Ganga Ram challenged the order of cancellation before learned Divisional Commission and Financial Commissioner but learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner upheld the order of cancellation of exchange of land in favour of deceased plaintiff in the interest of general public. It is also proved on record that Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram also pleaded in application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC that Sh Ganga Ram filed former civil Suit for declaration and injunction before the then Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin and challenged the order of learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner qua cancellation of exchange of land in favour of deceased Ganga Ram. It is further pleaded by Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram that order of cancellation of exchange of suit land in favour of deceased Ganga Ram was upheld by learned Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin in former civil suit No. 110/1 of 1984. Sh. Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram have also further pleaded in application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 96 CPC that deceased Ganga Ram concealed the facts of former Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 1984 in the subsequent suit. Learned first appellate Court grant permission to Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram to file appeal in the interest of general public and in the ends of justice. It is proved on record that over suit land interest of general public is involved. It is well settled law that Court can grant permission to third person to file appeal under Section 151 CPC in order to protect the interest of general public and in the ends of justice. It is held that learned first appellate Court has granted permission to Jiunu Ram and Bhagat Ram to file appeal in the interest of general public and in the interest of school going children and in the ends of justice. It is held that Section 151 CPC did not limit inherent powers of the Court to pass order which is necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. It is held that learned first appellate Court has permitted Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram to file appeal in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court. It is held that permission to Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram was necessary in present case for the ends of justice because plaintiff has concealed the factum of former civil suit No.110/1 of 1984 in the present civil suit wherein the matter in former civil suit and matter in subsequent civil suit were directly and substantially in issue. It is held that permission to Bhagat Ram and Jiunu Ram was necessary in present case for the ends of justice because plaintiff has concealed the factum of former civil suit No.110/1 of 1984 in the present civil suit wherein the matter in former civil suit and matter in subsequent civil suit were directly and substantially in issue. Finding upon substantial question of law No.2 framed in RSA No. 71 of 2003. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that judgment and decree of learned first appellate Court is result of the consideration of documents which were not part of the record is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned first appellate Court has based its decision upon former civil suit No. 110/1 of 1984 titled Ganga Ram Vs. State of HP which was decided by the then Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin on dated 24.9.1987. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class Ghumarwin is per se admissible. It is held that Court can take judicial notice of judgment and decree passed by civil Court suomoto in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. 14. In view of the above stated findings RSA No. 44 of 2003 and RSA No. 71 of 2003 are dismissed and judgment and decree of learned first appellate Court are affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certify copy of judgment will be placed in RSA No.71 of 2003. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.