K. Muthusamy Pillai vs Smt. Mallika, Smt. Nachiyarammal and P. Saravanakumar

S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is the tenant in the demised premises, which was originally belonged to the 2nd respondent. She

subsequently sold the property to the first respondent and she filed RCOP No. 10 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Srivilliputtur. The said

petition was allowed passing an order of eviction against the petitioner herein. Thereupon, he took up the matter on appeal in RCA No. 7 of 2007

before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Srivilliputtur and the same is pending for hearing.

Pending hearing of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 146 of 2008 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead a third

party by name Saravanakumar, who is the son of the second respondent. The said application was dismissed. Based on the allegation that the

second respondent and her son Saravanakuamr executed the sale deed in favour of the first respondent and for that purpose, the first respondent

being the Government servant, should have obtained permission from the superior viz., D.I.G of Police, Ramnad Range, the petitioner herein filed

another application in I.A. No. 147 of 2008 seeking for a direction to send for the sanction accorded from the said office to establish his case and

the said application was also dismissed.

Insofar as the impleadment is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. M. Subash Babu, would submit that the

petitioner has already availed opportunity before the Rent Controller, and having exhausted the same, an application for identical relief was filed

and the same was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred the Civil Revision Petition before this Court and the same was also dismissed by this

Court. Hence, the petitioner is precluded from filing another application before the Appellate Authority for the same relief.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thirunavukkrasu would place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sukhrani

(Dead) by L.R.S. and Others Vs. Hari Shanker and Others, wherein Their Lordships have held that when an order was passed in an interlocutory

application and when there was no appeal from the said order, there is no impediment for the appellate Court to consider the order passed by the

Court below. The operative portion of the said decision goes thus:

It is true that a decision given at an earlier stage of a suit will bind the parties at later stages of the same suit. But it is equally well settled that

because a matter has been decided at an earlier stage by an interlocutory order and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a

higher Court is not precluded from considering the matter again at a later stage of the same litigation.

He also gained support from the decision of this Court in Vattavila Sree Bhadrakali Educational Society Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and C.

Radhakrishnan, in which the learned Judge has observed that even during pendency of the Second Appeal, application for impleadment of a third

party can be considered.

In Urmila Patel and Anr. v. Laxmi Bai and Ors. reported in 2001 (92) CLJ 800, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that during pendency

of the appeal, application for impleadment of parties i.e to add purchasers to the suit, can be considered and thereby multiplicity of the proceedings

could be averted.

But, the facts of the case stand on a different footing. The petitioner had already filed similar application before the Rent Controller and invited

an order of dismissal and he has further suffered before this Court in a Civil Revision Petition. Hence, the present effort is hit by the principle of res

judicata. It is well settled proposition of law that the principle of res judicata applies not only to the different proceedings between the same parties

but also different stages of the same proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and Another, .

In such view of the matter, the present claim of the petitioner is hit by the principle of res judicata. Hence, he is precluded from filing another

application for identical relief and the same is not maintainable.

In the light of the above observation, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority

and the same is confirmed.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Revision Petition is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.