' This is the fourth round in litigation between the parties. This time the suit was not only vexatious but it was also brought against the private persons only though in the plaint it was the order, dated 24th November, 1958 passed by the A. C./D. R. C. Which was in fact challenged by the petitioners.
No one from the Settlement Department was impleaded as party to the suit without which this suit should have been dismissed summarily because the necessary party was not impleaded and the land in dispute is the same about which not only the litigation had been fought between the parties up to the level of Division Bench of the High Court but also in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner alongwith other, a statement was made before the learned District Judge which is contained in Exh-D. 4 admitting the fact that they were the tenants under the respondents but they prayed for the aid of the Court that they should not be dispossessed without recourse to law. The fact is, that the order passed by the A.C./D.R.C. On, 24th November, 1958 had got finality under the Act and by the order made in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court and further in their own previous suit. As such there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file this suit, the suit itself was mischievous and malicious and it should have been dismissed summarily by the learned Civil Judge on the sound principle of dispensation of justice apart from other powers available to him. Still it was tried and dismissed and appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge had also failed before the learned District Judge.
2. This is a revision in which the equitable jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked and that jurisdiction can be exercised only if the judgments and decrees of the Courts below suffer from jurisdictional defect or illegality or material irregularity. There is on such defect in the judgments of the two Courts below. A litigation is being carried on with the litigious mentality and without any claim.
3. In the presence of previous judgment of the learned District Judge before whom the petitioners along with other had conceded the title of the respondents and sought aid of the Court that they should not be evicted without due process of law and also in the presence of documents placed on the record, there could be no other reasonable decisions in the present case.
4. This revision has no force and is dismissed.