IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.232 of 2023 Decided on: 22.08.2025 Ganga Ram ...Appellant Versus Banti Devi & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge(oral) By way of this Regular Second Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff is seeking to assail the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi in Civil Appeal No.14/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, in Civil Suit No.114/2006, has been affirmed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land detailed in para-1 of the plaint. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was sought on the premise that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. 2 3. The defendants contested the suit and one of the objections raised by them was that the right claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was barred by principle of res judicata in view of the same issue having been decided between the same parties in Civil Suit No.298 of 1983 decided on 10.03.1988. 4. Besides other issues, learned trial Court framed issue No.6, which reads as under: 6. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? OPD 5. The aforesaid issue was decided in affirmative on the basis of judgment dated 10.03.1988, passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.298 of 1983. In the first appeal filed by the plaintiff, learned District Judge has also affirmed the said finding. 6. I have perused the record. A copy of decree dated 10.03.1988, passed in Civil Suit No.298 of 1983 was proved on record as Ext. D-1. Its perusal reveals that the said judgment was passed in a suit filed by Nathu, who was father of the present appellant/plaintiff. The suit land was the same. The right claimed by Nathu, father of appellant/plaintiff, in the suit was as tenant in possession. Learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sundernagar vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.1988 had dismissed the suit filed by Nathu by holding him not to be the tenant in possession. 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has urged that the prayer made in both the suits is different. In the suit filed by Nathu, the prayer was for possession, whereas in the instant suit, the prayer was for permanent prohibitory injunction. The principle of res judicata applies on the findings on a particular issue and the distinction in prayer cannot affect the applicability of the principle. As noticed above, in the earlier suit also, the father of the plaintiff had claimed his right as a tenant in possession which was declined and again when the plaintiff has come up with the same plea it cannot be granted in his favour. 8. The appellant/plaintiff herein is also claiming to be a tenant in possession of the suit land having inherited the said right from his father. He is not claiming such right independently. Thus, issue No.6 has rightly been decided by both the Courts. The plaintiff/appellant cannot rake up the same issue time and again. 9. In result, no substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 22nd August, 2025 (vt)