JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - When learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted regarding the maintainability of the present petition, he candidly conceded that such petition is not maintainable. However, he prayed that liberty may be granted to the petitioners for filing similar petition. Even this prayer of the petitioners cannot be acceded to because such prayer has already been granted to them by this Court while passing directions in CMPMO No.36/2019 decided on 17.01.2019. 2. Prima facie, I am of the considered view that the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court. One of the petitioners, Pratap Singh, has already filed CWP No. 1359 of 2018 on similar allegations wherein he has prayed for necessary directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register an FIR and investigate the case in a time bound manner. 3. This petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court on 21.06.2018 and the Division Bench passed the following order:- "CMP No. 5629/2018 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 1359/2018 Even though, we have our doubts regarding maintainability of the writ petition, however, the petitioner seeks time to implead the necessary parties. List this petition after such application is filed." 4. Later on, the writ petition was ordered to be admitted since the Court felt that pre-dominant civil dispute between the parties was already sub-judice in RFA No. 58 of 2018, titled as Pratap Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, as would be evident from the order dated 18.03.2019 which reads thus:- "Admit. Since the pre-dominant civil dispute between the parties is sub-judice in RFA No. 58 of 2018 titled as Pratap Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, let this petition be also heard along with the above stated first appeal" 5. Since the pre-dominant civil dispute between the parties is sub-judice in RFA No. 58 of 2018 titled as Pratap Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, let this petition be also heard along with the above stated first appeal" 5. The petitioners after realizing that no interim directions had been passed in the aforesaid writ petition, thereafter proceeded to file CMPMO No. 36 of 2019(supra) with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed that under the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon''ble Court may kindly please be allowed the present petition by issuing necessary direction to Respondent No.1 to provide each and every documents having admitted signatures of Petitioner No.2 to Respondent No.2 in accordance with law and further issue necessary directions to Respondent No.2 to obtain the opinion of expert with respect to forged signatures of Petitioner No.2 vide Annexure-P-5, 6, P-15, P-16 & P-17 with admitted signatures present on Copy of petition and power of attorney of RFA No.58 of 2018 & Copy of Petition & power of Attorney in C.W. No. 1359 of 2018 & Copy of Applications C.M.A. No. 85ADJ-II/6 of 2016 & C.M.A. No. 56ADJ-II/6 of 2017 filed in Land Reference No. 11ADJ-II/4 of 2014 decided on 28-12-2018 requisite by Hon''ble Court in RFA No. 58 of 2018 from the experts from the outside of State of H.P. i.e. State of Kolkata within a time bound manner & further directions may kindly be issued to take legal actions in this regards in the interest of justice and fair play, for which Petitioners humbly pray. Any other reliefs, under the facts and circumstances of the case, which this Hon''ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioners in the interest of justice and equity." 6. This petition was dismissed. Even therein, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to justify the maintainability of the petition which constrained the Court to pass the following order:- "Faced with the question of maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to move application qua prayers made in this petition in the proceedings which already stand initiated by the petitioners. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits qua the issues raised in the present petition. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits qua the issues raised in the present petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of." 7. Undeterred, the petitioners have now filed the instant petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed that under the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon''ble Court may kindly please be allowed the present Petition by passing an Order to examine the forged signatures of Petitioner No.2 forged on Petition No. 11ADJ-II/4 of 2014 titled as Neerja & Other versus State of H.P. as Annexure-P-8 & Power of Attorney filed in Petition No. 11ADJ-II/4 of 2014 as Annexure-P-9 on the basis of which Award No. 11ADJ-II/4 of 2014 dated 28.12.2018 had already been passed in a wrong & illegal manner with admitted signatures of Petitioner No.2 present on R.F.A No. 58 of 2018 & power of attorney in R.F.A. No. 9 of 2019 pending before the Hon''ble High Court of H.P. and forged signature of Petitioner forged on RFA No. 89 of 2015 as Annexure-P-6 & Power of Attorney filed therein as Annexure-P-7 and forged signatures of petitioner forged on power of attorney filed in RFA No. 160 of 2015 as Annexure-P-5 pending before the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh with admitted signatures of Petitioner already on records in Copy of Petition and power of Attorney of RFA No. 58 of 2018 and Copy of Petition & power of Attorney in C.W.P No. 1359 of 2018 & Copy of Applications C.M.A. No. 85ADJ-II/6 of 2016 & C.M.A No. 56ADJ-II/6 of 2017 filed in Land Reference No. 11ADJ-II/4 of 2014 decided on 28.12.2018 requisite by Hon''ble Court in RFA No. 58 of 2018 through experts from outside of State of H.P. i.e. State of Kolkata within a time bound manner & further directions may kindly be issued to take legal actions in this regards in the interest of justice and fair plays, for which Petitioners humbly pray. Any other reliefs, under the facts and circumstances of the case, which this Hon''ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner & against the Respondents in the interest of justice and equity." 8. Any other reliefs, under the facts and circumstances of the case, which this Hon''ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner & against the Respondents in the interest of justice and equity." 8. Thus, it stands established on record that the petitioners are leaving no stone unturned in trying to give a criminal colour and flavour to a civil dispute and in furtherance thereof have tried to initiate multiple proceedings, both civil and criminal, against the respondents simply in order to harass them. This is not permissible. This Court would have proceeded to impose exemplary costs on the petitioners, but since the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly prayed for withdrawal of the petition, therefore, this Court refrains from doing so. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 10. However, it goes without saying that in case such frivolous petition(s) is/are filed by the petitioners in future, then the Court shall be constrained to take serious action against them.