SUBBIAH Vs. SAKTHI FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the order made in I. A. No. 3846/2006 in O. S. No. 9171/1996, dated 17. 3. 2006, on the file of the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

(2.) I. A. No. 3846/2006 has been filed by the Revision Petitioner who is second defendant in O. S. No. 9171/1996, under Sec. 94 (e) read with Sec. 151 of C. P. C. , praying for an interim direction restraining the respondent/plaintiff herein from executing the decree passed in O. S. No. 917 1/1996, dated 28. 7. 1998, pending disposal of the I. A. Nos. 1563 and 156 4 of 2005 in the above suit.

(3.) IT is true that already an application in i. A. No. 4070/2005 was filed by the Revision Petitioner to grant stay of the decree dated 28. 7. 1998 in E. P. No. 169/2004 and this application was dismissed by the trial court on 10. 8. 2005. Challenging this order dated 10. 8. 2005, no appeal nor any revision has been filed and this order reached its finality. In such circumstances, the court below is right in holding that I. A. No. 3846/2006 praying to restrain the respondent/plaintiff from executing the decree in o. S. No. 9171/1996 is hit by the doctrine of res judicat a. By merely altering the words of the prayer, the revision Petitioner herein is not to be permitted to re-agitate the same issue in the same proceedings. Further, the conduct of Revision Petitioner is also to be noted against him for the reason that he suppressed the fact that I. A. No. 4070/2005 to stay the execution of the decree in O. S. No. 9171/1996 has already dismissed in the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 3846/2006. He has already filed an application under Sec. 47 of C. P. C. , in the Execution Petition and the same was also dismissed. Even the conditional order passed in E. P. No. 169/2004 was also not complied with and in such circumstances I do not approve of the conduct of the Revision Petitioner herein in filing one application after another for the same relief by suppressing the earlier applications. Therefore, I am in entire agreement with the reasons given by the court below in rejecting i. A. No. 3846/2006 and I find no illegality nor infirmity in the order passed to be interfered with by this court under its revisional jurisdiction.