SHYAM LAL Vs. DARSHAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred against an order dated 10. 2. 2003 whereby an application made by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed. The trial Court while dismissing the application observed that similar application for the same relief was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and that application was dismissed by the trial Court on 20. 3. 2002. A review against that order was also dismissed by the trial Court on 11. 9. 2002 and a second application for the same relief by just changing the provision would not lie.

(2.) THE petitioner has not denied that it moved an earlier application under Section 151 CPC for the same relief seeking production of original ?will? from the opposite party and a review filed against that was also dismissed. It is settled law that once a matter is decided by the Court, the issue becomes res judicata. This is applicable not only in case of suits but in case of other proceedings also. If a trial Court decides an application on merits in respect of the interim relief, a second application before the same court for the same relief would not lie, more so, when there is no change in circumstances. The petitioner had not challenged the earlier order of the trial court thus, the earlier passed by the trial Court became final. A second application before trial Court was not maintainable and this petition under article 227 against the order is also not maintainable. It may also be noted that the petitioner had also preferred a revision petition against the order which he withdrew on 1. 4. 2003 making a statement that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of amended proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 115 cpc since this was an interlocutory order.

(3.) I consider that petition under Article 227 has much restricted scope than the petition under Section 115 of CPC. Article 227 calls upon this court only to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to see that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any material irregularity. Whereas the jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is much wider and the Court can see that if the Court below had acted within its jurisdiction and the order passed by the court below does not suffer from any irregularity and does not cause a failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground and is hereby dismissed.