- (1.) Challenge is to the order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application dated 18.3.2010 for leading additional evidence filed by the plaintiff has been allowed. The plaintiff has been given liberty to examine PW Gurlabh Singh in additional evidence subject to payment of Rs.300/- as costs. The short point for consideration is :- "Whether after withdrawal of application for leading additional evidence, the second application for the same purpose is maintainable -
(2.) The plaintiff-State Bank of Patiala filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,02,771/- outstanding balance in terms of loan including interest from the defendant Jarag Singh. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff closed their evidence on 24.2.2007. The defendants on the other hand concluded their evidence on 20.11.2009. The suit was posted for arguments when the application for additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff on 26.11.2009. This application was withdrawn by the counsel for the plaintiff on 12.1.2010. Thereafter, the case was posted for rebuttal evidence on 22.2.2010. The second application was filed to examine Gurlabh Singh, Field Officer, who could not be examined earlier. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment Bahadur Singh and another versus Avtar Singh, 2007 3 RCR(Civ) 44 to contend that the principle of res judicata is applicable to the proceedings in a pending litigation also. In a suit for specific performance, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by subsequent purchaser. The applicant had opposed the application for impleadment of the subsequent vendees, he is estopped for subsequently making a similar application for impleadment of the same parties on the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court in Shanmughasundaram and others versus Diravia Nadar (D) by LRs and others, 2005 3 JT 186had examined the principle of res judicata. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under :- "Unfortunately, for the appellant, the second ground of invalidity of the first award was not expressly challenged in the appeal preferred to the High Court against the order setting aside the said award. The High Court has confirmed judgment of the civil Court setting aside the first award and the same has attained finality. It would operate as res judicata between the parties. See the following observations in Satyadhan v. Smt. Deorajin Debi, 1960 AIR(SC) 941 "The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily, it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter, whether on a question of fact or on a question of law, has been decided between the two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher Court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by Courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher Court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct.
(3.) The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial Court or a higher Court having at an earlier stage decided in a matter one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.;