PADMAVATHY Vs. RATHINA SABAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.60 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, for partition, impleading the respondents 3 to 7. The suit was decreed on 7.1.2003, and the preliminary decree was passed, as prayed for. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed an application in I.A. No. 1068 of 2004, to implead themselves in the said suit, stating that they are subsequent purchasers of 4/5 shares in the suit properties and that application was dismissed and as against the same, the revision petitioners filed a Revision Petition, before this Court in C.R.P.No.1945 of 2004, and the said Revision Petition was also dismissed. Thereafter, the first respondent herein filed A.S.No.33 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram, challenging the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.50 of 1996, and in that First Appeal, the revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 109 of 2005 and that was dismissed for default and as against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that though the revision petitioners were subsequent purchasers, they are entitled to be impleaded in the suit for partition, as they are proper parties and relied upon a judgment in the case of Dhanalakshmi and others vs. P. Mohan and others,2007 3 CTC 332. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the order of the Court below has to be set aside.

(2.) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

(3.) Admittedly, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1068 of 2004 in O.S.No.60 of 1996, to implead themselves as parties to the suit and that application was rejected and confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1945 of 2004, vide order dated 2.1.2004. Therefore, that judgment is binding on the revision petitioners and the judgment rendered in I.A.No.1068 of 2004, in O.S.No.60 of 1996, will operate as res judicata. It is a settled legal principle of law that even in respect of pending proceedings, earlier order will operate as res judicata in the subsequent stage of proceedings and in this case, at the instance of the revision petitioners, their application to implead themselves was already rejected and therefore, that judgment will operate as res judicata and it is not open to the revision petitioners to raise the same plea in the subsequent stage of the proceedings, as Appeal is only a continuation of the suit. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be applied to the facts of the present case on hand, as the application filed by them was already rejected by the Court below on an earlier occasion. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition, being devoid of merits is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.