JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgments and decrees, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No.12/1 of 2010, titled as Daropati Versus Purshottam and another, decided on 30.12.2013 and by the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P, in Civil Appeal No.1/13 of 2014, titled as Dropti Devi Versus Purshottam Singh and another, decided on 01.05.2014, vide which the suit as well as appeal filed by the present appellant against the respondents herein stand dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant/ plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as the "plaintiff") through her General Power of Attorney Shri Atma Ram, filed a suit, praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for restraining them from causing any interference over the suit land measuring 22-7 bigha, comprised in khasra No.697 khata khatoni No.202/248 min, situated in village Badgaon, Pargna Sunhani, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that she was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. The defendants were strangers to the suit land who were having no right, title or interest thereupon. On 12.01.2010, defendants had started causing interference over the suit land by digging the same as also by destroying the crops and grass standing upon the same, hence the suit. 4. The suit was contested by defendants, who besides taking preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit, on merit, while admitting the factum of the plaintiff being exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, denied that they had caused any interference over the same. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was a habitual litigant, who had filed suit after suit against the defendants, claiming the same relief, which stood dismissed. It was also the case of the defendants that suit was barred by the principle of res-judicata. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own acts, conduct, omissions and commissions, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by principle of res-judicata, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not properly verified, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 11. Relief". 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1 : Negative. Issue No.2 : Negative. Issue No.3 : Affirmative. Issue No.4 : Negative. Issue No.5 : Negative. Issue No.6 : Negative. Issue No.7 : Negative. Issue No.8 : Negative. Issue No.9 : Negative. Issue No.10 : Negative. Relief : The suit is dismissed per operative part of the judgment". 7. The suit was thus dismissed by the learned trial Court by holding that plaintiff had miserably failed to demonstrate that any fresh cause of action had accrued in her favour, enabling her to maintain the suit against the defendants. Learned trial Court held that it was a matter of record that various civil suits were filed with regard to the suit land itself, praying for the same relief against the defendants, which stood dismissed by the Civil Courts. 8. Learned Court further held that three witnesses who were examined to prove her case by the plaintiff i.e. PW-2 Onkar Singh, PW-3 Jamit Singh and PW-4 Sardar Deen, were not able to demonstrate that there was any interference being caused upon the suit land by the defendants. 8. Learned Court further held that three witnesses who were examined to prove her case by the plaintiff i.e. PW-2 Onkar Singh, PW-3 Jamit Singh and PW-4 Sardar Deen, were not able to demonstrate that there was any interference being caused upon the suit land by the defendants. Learned Court held that Onkar Singh had categorically stated in his crossexamination that the statement which he was making pertained to the events which had accrued somewhere in the year 1985 and he was neither aware nor conversant with the dispute presently going on between the parties. Similarly, PW3 Jamit Singh stated in his cross-examination that he was a witness to a demarcation which was conducted about 25 to 26 years back perhaps in the year 1985 and since then he had no idea about the suit land. Learned trial Court also held that PW-4 Sardar Deen deposed that he was not aware as to against whom the suit was filed and he had no idea about the dispute regarding suit land. Learned trial Court further held that statement of the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was equally balanced by the statement of the defendant i.e. DW-1 Purshottam Singh and the allegations made by the plaintiff that defendant had cut and sold big trees from the suit land, could not be substantiated by way of any cogent evidence on record. Learned trial Court also held that the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate and prove that any trees standing upon the suit land were felled by the defendants or that defendants had dug up portion of the suit land and had destroyed the crops and grass. 9. On these basis, learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that plaintiff had not led cogent and reliable evidence to prove interference allegedly being caused by the defendants over the suit land. 10. In appeal, findings returned by the learned trial Court were upheld. Learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, held that record clearly demonstrated that repeated suits were unsuccessfully filed by plaintiff against defendants qua the suit land. Learned Appellate Court observed that plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.1/1 of 1988 for possession of the suit land, but said suit was withdrawn on 14.06.1988. Thereafter, Civil Suit No.163-1 of 1988 was filed, in which same suit land was involved. Learned Appellate Court observed that plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.1/1 of 1988 for possession of the suit land, but said suit was withdrawn on 14.06.1988. Thereafter, Civil Suit No.163-1 of 1988 was filed, in which same suit land was involved. Said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.04.1991 (Ext.D-4). Thereafter, Civil Suit No.361/1of 1995/94 was filed and that suit was also dismissed vide judgment Ext.D-5/DE dated 18.10.2001. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed vide judgment Ext.D-6 dated 19.04.2005. The plaintiff did not relent and went on to file another suit i.e. Civil Suit No.112-1 of 2002, for possession of the suit land, which was also dismissed vide judgment Ext.D-1 dated 23.03.2006. 11. Learned Appellate Court, thus held that plaintiff unnecessarily was filing one suit after another with regard to the claim upon the same property, which matter already stood finally decided between the parties. Learned Appellate Court held that no doubt, in the fresh suit filed, plaintiff had mentioned different date with regard to the accrual of the cause of action, but none of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff corroborated her case as none of them were aware about the existing position at the spot and PW-2, PW-3 examined by the plaintiff had categorically stated that they were not aware about the factual position of the suit land except the demarcation which had taken place as far back as in the year 1985 and PW-4 had categorically stated that he was not aware about any dispute between the parties. Learned Appellate Court thus held that the evidence led by plaintiff did not support her case that defendants had interfered with the suit land and on these basis, it held that the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that plaintiff was trying to beat the bush by needlessly filing one suit after another. 12. Feeling aggrieved, appellant/ plaintiff had filed the present appeal. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 14. The suit filed by appellant/ plaintiff was for permanent prohibitory injunction. It is settled law that the said relief is a discretionary relief, which the Court may grant to plaintiff in case it is satisfied that there is interference being caused by defendants. 15. 14. The suit filed by appellant/ plaintiff was for permanent prohibitory injunction. It is settled law that the said relief is a discretionary relief, which the Court may grant to plaintiff in case it is satisfied that there is interference being caused by defendants. 15. In the present case, there are concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below that plaintiff had failed to substantiate that any interference whatsoever was being caused upon the suit land by defendants. It is further evident from the record that as far as the factum of plaintiff being owner in possession of the suit land is concerned, even defendants are not disputing it. However, they have categorically maintained that they are not causing any interference whatsoever upon the suit land and filing of the suit is nothing, but an addition to a long process which involved filing of numerous such suits unsuccessfully by plaintiff against defendants. It is duly borne out from the record that about four to five Civil Suits were filed by plaintiff against defendants, seeking same/similar relief, which stood prayed for in the last suit filed by her, out of which this appeal has arisen. In none of the earlier suits, there was any adjudication in favour of plaintiff. Though few cases were withdrawn by plaintiff, however, other cases stood decided by the learned Court (s) against plaintiff on merit. 16. As the allegation of plaintiff was that defendants were interfering upon the suit land, onus, but obvious, was upon plaintiff to have had proved this fact in the present case. There are again concurrent findings returned by both the learned Courts below that none of the witnesses examined by plaintiff to prove her case i.e. PW-2 Onkar Singh, PW-3 Jamit Singh and PW-4 Sardar Deen, have corroborated the case of plaintiff that defendants were interfering with the suit land. 17. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out that the findings returned by both the learned Courts below were perverse and not borne out from the record. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellant also could not demonstrate the concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below that even the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was not able to prove any interference over the suit land by defendants, were perverse findings and not borne out from the record. 18. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellant also could not demonstrate the concurrent findings returned by the learned Courts below that even the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was not able to prove any interference over the suit land by defendants, were perverse findings and not borne out from the record. 18. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that filing of previous suits, claiming relief of permanent prohibitory injunction is no bar for filing a fresh case in case a fresh cause of action accrues in favour of a party, but in the present case, plaintiff has miserably failed to demonstrate that any fresh cause accrued in her favour to file and maintain the suit in hand. 19. Whether or not, there was interference upon the suit land by defendants being a question of fact has been decided in favour of defendants and against plaintiff by both the learned Courts below. It is also borne out from the record that appellant/ plaintiff is a chronic litigant who has dragged the respondents in numerous litigation unsuccessfully. Therefore, as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. 20. This Court also concurs with the findings returned by the learned Courts below that filing of the suit was nothing but an abuse of process of law and an endeavour to unnecessarily harass defendants. Thus, this appeal is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- upon appellant/ plaintiff. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.