- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. In this petition caveat has been filed for respondents Nos. 3 to 13 by Shri M. A. Qadeer, Advocate. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that plaintiff (now represented by respondents Nos. 3 to 13) filed C. C. C. Suit No. 195 of 1971 for ejectment of the defendant from the accommodation in dispute. This suit was decreed on 11-11-1985. Civil Revision No. 575 of 1985 was filed in the court of District Judge, Allahabad, which too was dismissed on 10-8-1987. Thereafter, challenging the aforesaid orders, writ petition No. 20248 of 1987 was filed which was also dismissed. The decree was put in for execution which was registered as Execution Case No. 179 of 1985. In this execution, an objection was filed by petitioner under Section 47, C. P. C. questioning the executability of the decree on various grounds including that the decree is not executable for ejectment from house No. 39 (now new number 42 ). This objection was registered as Misc. Case No. 114 of 1987. However, the objection was rejected on 18-11- 1987. The order rejecting the objection was challenged in Civil Revision No. 372 of 1988. This revision was dismissed in default. Thereafter, application for restoration was filed which too was dismissed on 5- 11-1988. Then an application for restoring the restoration application was filed which was. also rejected on 2-3-1989. These orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1989. In this petition stay order was granted on 15-7-1989. However, this Court after hearing the parties, vacated the stay order on 22- 8-1989. Then, the respondents made an application for amending warrant for delivery of possession by mentioning house No. 39/42 in place of 39/43. This application was rejected on 27-6-1995. Aggrieved by this order, the decree-holders filed Civil Revision No. 958 of 1995, Respondents then made an application for amendment of the plaint of S. C. C. Suit No. 195 of 1971 for correcting the relief clause wherein by mistake house number was wrongly described as 39/43 which in fact should have been 39/42. This application was opposed by petitioner. However, learned trial court allowed this application vide order dated 30-1-1996. Aggrieved by this order petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 53 of 1996. Both the aforesaid revisions have been heard together and decided by a common order dated 7-2-1996, aggrieved by which petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the order of the court below dated 27-6-1995 rejecting the application of respondents (59-C) was res-judicata as same amendment which was sought latter on was considered. However, the trial court illegally allowed the subsequent application (3-C) vide order dated 30-1-1996. The application was barred by principles of res-judicara which can be invoked not only in separate proceedings. They also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in course of the proceedings becomes final, it would be binding on the parties at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Learned counsel has placed reliance in cases or Y B. Patil v. Y. L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392 and Laxmi Devi v. Chandra Mani Devi, AIR 1971 All 506. Second submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that as Suit No. 195 of 1971 was decreed by the Court below on 11-11-1985, thereafter revision was dismissed on 10-8-1987 and Writ Petition No. 20248 of 1987 was dismissed by this Court, the trial court was not legally competent to entertain the application for amendment of the plaint as the decree stood merged in the decree of the higher court. The order dated 30-1- 1996 was thus wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The revisional court has failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. In support of this submission reliance has been placed in case of Durga Singh v. Wahid Raza, AIR 1965 All 226 (D. B. ). Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that the plaint could not be allowed to be amended at this belated stage.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner lastly submitted that if the court below allowed the plaint to be amended, the defendant petitioner should have been permitted a fresh opportunity to file written statement and the course adopted by the court below is violative of the principles of natural justice. Shri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that it was on account of the clerical mistake that in relief clause of the plaint, house number was wrongly described as 39/43 while it should have been 39/42. However, the parties have con tested the suit with full knowledge that defendant petitioner is occupying house No. 39/42 and by allowing application for correction of the relief clause, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the body of the plaint in so many paragraphs the house number mentioned was 39/42. Such a clerical mistake could be allowed to be corrected in the interest of justice at any stage.;