JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is the judgment of Joint Director Consolidation and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 8,8,1980 and 6.4.1978 (annexure No. 4 and 3 to the writ petition respectively).
2. When the matter was taken up, the court found something peculiar as there was report of Stamp Reporter that the limitation to file this writ petition was up to 6.11.1980 and thus there is delay of 23 years and 328 days. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed this writ petition was called upon to argue on the question of filing of this writ petition not only after inordinate delay and the laches but after unusual laches.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of certain averments as made in the writ petition tried to explain the laches in filing this writ petition. At this stage certain admitted facts which comes out on a perusal of the averments of the writ petition and the material as exist on the record will be useful to be noticed. Admittedly against the impugned judgments dated 8.8.1980 and 6.4.1978 a writ petition was filed before this Court i.e. writ petition No. 9133 of 1980 which was entertained and that remained pending up to the year 2003. In the aforesaid writ petition admittedly the. present petitioner No. 2 Jai Narain was petitioner No. 3, Two other persons namely Mala Deen and Data Deen who are respondents 10 and 11 here were petitioners 1 and 2. Ram Narain, petitioner No. 1 in this petition was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the earlier writ petition. The writ petition referred above was finally heard and decided by this Court on the merits by speaking order dated 29.10.2003 and the writ petition was finally dismissed.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact Jai Narain who was petitioner No. 3 in the earlier writ petition was misled by Mata Deen and Data Deen who were the co-petitioners in the said petition. He was under the impression that they are doing proper pairvi in the matter but in fact petitioner was bluffed by them and thus he could not place correct/complete facts resulting in to dismissal of the earlier writ petition, submission is that after dismissal of the earlier writ petition, petitioners have realised the things and now they are filing this writ petition with the hope that their claim on merits will be examined and accepted.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and the explanation as given, the Court has examined the matter.
6. On the facts, as stated above there is no dispute that present petitioner No. 2 was the petitioner No. 3 in the writ petition referred above. Petitioner No. 1 of this petition was the respondent No. 4 in the earlier writ petition, which remained pending for quite long time and was decided on the merits. The ground of lack of understanding of present petitioners about proper pairvi on behalf of other petitioners or any confusion in this respect even if is accepted for the sake of argument can be a ground to move an application in the earlier writ petition itself but in no case the second writ petition by the same petitioners against the same impugned orders can be permitted to be filed. So far the stand about lack of understanding of proper pairvi in the earlier writ petition is concerned, it can be said in every case, as and when the judgment in any case goes against a party. In the event the petitioners have been defrauded and have been cheated by other co-petitioners remedy of the petitioner can be in filing a suit against that party claiming damages if the law permits. So far the final judgment of this Court given in the earlier writ petition at the instance of the petitioners themselves is concerned that cannot be subject matter of scrutiny by another Judge sitting in the coordinate jurisdiction. If the judgment of this Court, according to the petitioners is wrong, remedy is by approaching the higher forum, In view of the aforesaid, this Court is convinced that filing of this writ petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and in fact it was for the learned counsel also to have advised the petitioners not to file the present writ petition but to approach the higher forum if the petitioners intended to take up the matter again, against the judgment of this Court. As filing of this writ petition is held to be abuse of process of the court it appears to be just and proper to dismiss the writ petition with cost, payable by petitioners.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be permitted to get this writ petition dismissed as not pressed. Prayer in this respect is being refused straightaway. Once writ petition has been filed by the petitioners and it has come up before the Court it becomes the court property. It is not the sweet will of a party to file writ petition and if during the course of argument, result suits him, to pursue the same and if observation of Court goes against him then pray for dismissal of writ petition as not pressed. It. is to be made clear that unless the Court, is satisfied with the bonafide in the prayer to get writ petition dismissed as not pressed, it is not to be granted. No body can be permitted to misuse the process of law. On the facts and the reasons as indicated, the prayer made to dismiss the writ petition as not pressed is not to be accepted.
8. In the last it can be observed that filing of this writ petition is an example of unusual and extraordinary courage of petitioners, which came on surface on account of expertise preparation of the case/grounds by learned counsel. Hope of success in the second inning of the battle although in the first inning before this Court inspite of full opportunity they could not succeed, appears to be beyond comprehension in judicial process.
9. For the reasons recorded, writ petition tails and is dismissed with cost which this Court quantifies as Rs. 5,000/ -.
10. Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Collector, Allahabad within a period of two weeks. Upon receipt of the copy of this order Collector, Allahabad will inform the petitioners about this order within another period of two weeks calling upon them to deposit the amount of cost with him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of information from the Collector, Allahabad. If petitioners fail to deposit the amount so directed, within a period of one month from the date of information given to them it will be the duty of Collector, Allahabad to recover the same from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. The cost so realised from the petitioners in terms of the orders of this Court shall be remitted to the Registrar General of this Court so that it may be deposited with the Legal Aid Committee which is functioning in this Court.