MEDAM SANKARANARAYAN Vs. GADDALA TRIPATHI TAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An intersting question of law is raised in these two revision petitions.

(2.) It arises in the following manner: The plaintiff in O.S. 50/67 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court. Kurnool filed two petitions I.A. Nos. 227 and 228 of 19689 the former for amendment of the plaint and the latter to add some more parties as defendants to the suit. On 12-7-68 they were dismissed for default for the non-appearance of the plaintiff. Thereupon, he invoked the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. to his aid and filed on 3-9-1968 I.A.Nos.347 and 348 for setting aside the orders of dismissal for default in the earlier applications They however, met with the same fate. Once again the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 537 and 538 of 1968. one for adding parties and the other for amending the plaint. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dismissed those two petitions holding that the third batch of petitions on the same subject matter would not arise and could not be entertained in view of the fact that I.A. Nos. 347 and 348 had bee rejected on merits. Aggrieved by this dismissal the plaintiff has brought the matter to this court in these two revision petitions.

(3.) In the first place Sri R.V.Subbo Rao, appearing for the petitioner contended that neither Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code nor any principle of constructive res judicata could apply to these cases because none of the earlier petition filed on the first occasion had been decided on its merits. This is an obvious proposition and Sri Sadasiv Reddy Learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute this. There is no bar res judicata to the entertainment of the latest set of applications.