- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.5.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.479/2005 by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC seeking summoning of 24 demand drafts from the issuing Banks and Stamp Papers from the office of ADM (Stamps), had been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the defendants on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 12.6.1986, allegedly superseded / novated by an oral agreement dated 18.8.1991. According to the petitioners, they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract which is clear from the fact that pursuant thereto they got 24 demand drafts made from three banks in the names of the persons desired by non-petitioner (seller) and also purchased Stamp Papers for the purpose of execution of sale deed. The non-petitioners' case, on the other hand, was that no oral agreement was arrived at between them and the agreement dated 12.6.1986 had come to an end and no other agreement was executed on 18.8.1991. According to the plaintiff, they obtained bank demand drafts for payment of sale price and further purchased non-judicial stamp papers for preparation of sale deeds and on refusal by the defendants No. 1 to 3, they obtained refund of stamp papers from the Assistant Collector (Stamps) and further deposited back the bank demand drafts in respective Banks and obtained refund thereof. The plaintiffs' contention is that non-judicial stamp papers lying with the additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur and the original of the Bank Demand Drafts lying with the Banks were necessary to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. Hence they be summoned from the respective Banks and office of Additional Collector (Stamps). The defendants opposed this application contending, inter alia, that earlier also plaintiffs had made an application, although quoting O.11 R.14 CPC, but was with the similar prayer, which was dismissed on 11.5.2010. Second application with the same prayer and allegation of fact was not maintainable as it was barred by law. Considered the rival arguments and perused the record as also the impugned order. Admittedly, the subject matter of applications dated 10.4.2010 and 15.4.2010 filed under O.11 R.14 CPC, was the same as in the later application filed under O.16 R.6 CPC seeking directions to summon the documents from the bank and office of ADM Stamps. Learned trial court while dismissing earlier application, had observed that the plaintiffs could file the certified copies of those documents after obtaining them from the bank as also from the office of ADM Stamps.
(3.) IT is clear from the perusal of order dated 19.5.2010 that the earlier application, filed by the plaintiffs was rejected on merits after considering the arguments and contention of the plaintiffs. The Court had also held in the order dated 11.5.2010 that the application was filed belatedly in the suit pending since 1992 and further that the plaintiffs did not produce the certified copy of the documents sought to be called for. The detailed order passed by the learned trial court was not challenged by the petitioners, which has attained finality. IT is always open for the petitioners to have information under R.T.I. from the respective bank/department to prove their side of the story. Second application on the same facts with the similar prayer with change of provisions of CPC was not maintainable and barred by law. The Court below recorded reasons for rejecting the application. In my considered view, the petitioners could not circumvent the law simply by mentioning different provisions of CPC. The fact remains that the earlier application and the later application both were founded on same allegations of fact and with same prayer. Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of provision of law would not be of any relevance as observed by the Apex Court in para 13 of the judgment recorded in T. Nagappa v/s Y.R. Murlidhar (2008) 5 SCC 633). The second application was barred by the principle of resjudicata. It is settled law that the principle of resjudicata applies in the subsequent stage of same proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme court in Barkat Ali and Another v/s Badrinarain (dead) by LRs (2008) 4 SCC 615) having referred to its earlier judgments held that the principle of resjudicata not only applies in respect of separate proceedings but the general principle also applies at the subsequent stage of same proceedings and the same Court is precluded to go into that question again which has been decided or deemed to have been decided by it at an earlier stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. ;