JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.3.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh( Camp at Paonta Sahib) in CMA No.3-N/14 of 2017, affirming the order dated 21.12.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in CMA No.166/6 of 2016 in Civil Suit No.194/1 of 2016, whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ''plaintiffs'') , praying therein for restraining the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ''defendants'') from sowing, ploughing, occupying or creating any obstruction over the path measuring 2 gathas, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.66min/88min, Khasra No.141/17, situated in village Kundio, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. ( hereinafter referred to the ''suit land'') came to be dismissed, has approached this Court by way of instant petition. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Paonta Sahib for permanent prohibitory injunction alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the defendants from sowing, ploughing, occupying or creating any kind of obstruction over the suit land. Application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of ad-interim injunction came to be decided on 21.12.2016, whereby aforesaid prayer for restraining the defendants was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs preferred Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a consequence of which, order dated 21.12.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P in CMA No.194/1 of 2016, came to be upheld. 4. After having heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully gone through the record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, rather same appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the material adduced on record by the respective parties. 5. 4. After having heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully gone through the record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, rather same appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of the material adduced on record by the respective parties. 5. It is apparent from the record that prior to institution of the instant civil suit having been filed by the plaintiffs, civil suit bearing No.113/1 of 2016/2010 was filed by Sh. Sangat Singh and others, who are defendants in the present proceedings, praying therein for decree of injunction against the plaintiffs-petitioners, who were allegedly causing interference by blocking the path, which is also the subject matter of the present suit. It is also not in dispute that aforesaid civil suit having been filed by Sh. Sangat Ram and others (defendants herein) was also for restraining the defendants from causing any interference and blocking the path, which is subject matter of the present suit. It is also not in dispute that civil suit, as has been taken note above, came to be decreed in favour Sh. Sangat Ram & others and decree of permanent injunction was passed against the present petitioners-plaintiffs. Since, suit property is/was subject matter of the previous suit, which was decreed in favour of the defendants herein, learned courts below rightly rejected the application having been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein to restrain the defendants from causing any obstruction over the suit land. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel representing the petitioners-plaintiffs, was unable to dispute that decree passed in civil suit No.113/1 of 2016/2010 has attained finality qua respective rights of the parties and as such, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional District Judge. This Court finds considerable force in the arguments of Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel representing the defendants respondents herein that the present petition is sheer abuse of process of law. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no valid reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of material adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same is upheld. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no valid reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of material adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending application(s) , if any.