JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 993, contended that principle of res judicata would not be applicable at interlocutory stages of the suit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. To appreciate the merit or otherwise, or this contention, reference to basic facts would be necessary, Smt. Bhagmali, Chahat Ram and Bijender filed a suit for possession of land measuring about 50 kanals 2 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Sarurpur Tehsil Ballabhgarh. The plaintiffs claimed to be owner of the suit land and had terminated the licence in favour of the defendant in the suit. They claimed to have got the suit land by inheritance and having terminated the licence, prayed for cultivatory dispossession of the defendant in the suit the ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant on October 6, 1986. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. However, in appeal the same was set aside. The suit was contested by the defendant. He claimed to have become owner and it was stated that the suit was barred under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act and Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit.
3. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner herein had produced Exhibits D-2 to D-6 copies of the jamabandies for different years which, according to him, were obtained from Patwari Halka. Earlier an application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 7.4.1998. However, again an application was filed on 28.9.1998 under Order 18 Rule 17-A for seeking leave to lead additional evidence and produce on record the other certified copies of the same documents which allegedly had been obtained by the defendant from the office of Deputy Commissioner. This application was also dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.10.1998. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant in the suit (petitioner herein), has preferred the present revision petition.
4. The learned trial Court noticed that the documents were tendered in evidence by the applicant himself after obtaining the certified copies from the concerned quarters. Whether the documents were correct or incorrect was for the defendant to see before filing the same. Having filed certified copies of the documents on record, the defendant, would hardly be left with any alternative to deny the very same documents while producing fresh copies of the same documents. The Court held that the application was even otherwise not sustainable in view of the principle of res judicata.
5. I have no hesitation in affirming both the reasons given by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Firstly, the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A cannot be construed in a manner which will totally frustrate the very object of fair trial in a suit. Order 18 Rule 17-A is an exception to the general rule that any party to the suit can produce all documents and lead evidence at the later stage in accordance with law. The party must satisfy the Court that there was reasonable grounds for not producing the documents initially and the said documents could not be produced despite due care and caution being taken by the party concerned. In its strict sense this order may not have an application to the facts of the present case. Copies of the jamabandi Exhibits D-2 to D-6 were actually obtained by the defendant himself from the concerned authorities and they were filed on the Court record. The defendant also faced trial on the basis of these documents and in fact the said documents were exhibited during the evidence of the defendant. Now the first attempt of the defendant to wriggle out of the documents produced on record was that he filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A on the ground that Exhibits D-2 to D-6 though were the certified copies, but were not complete and had been torn. This application was filed by the defendant when the case was fixed for arguments. The application was contested by the plaintiffs who stated that the application for additional evidence was not maintainable, the jamabandies were complete copies and were also correctly certified as per record and further it was specifically stated that the jamabandies which the defendant now wishes to produce have additional columns, allegedly, though, relating to the same year. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide its order dated 7.4.1998. The observations of the Court runs as under:
“Objections raised by counsel for the plaintiff is correct to this extent that these jamabandies have been produced by the defendant with an ulterior motive and malafide intention in order to create evidence in collusion with the patwari because the entry was not earlier existing otherwise there was no need to produce these documents. On a careful perusal of jamabandies which were earlier placed on record by defendants also shows that they are complete in all respect and are legible and shows all the entries and serve the purpose of the Court. Thus the application of the defendant is not maintainable under Order 18 Rule 17-A because defendant has miserably failed to show this fact that how despite exercise of due diligence he failed to produce evidence and the evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the relevant time. Hence application of the defendant is dismissed. Now case is adjourned to 15.4.1998 for rebuttal evidence/arguments.”
6. On 28.9.1989 a similar application was filed on the ground that the applicant had obtained the fresh certified copies of the jamabandies from the office of Tehsildar and they should be permitted to be placed on record by way of additional evidence. This application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure was again dismissed by the learned trial Court. Amongst other reasons the learned trial Court also held that the application was an abuse of the process of Court and had been filed primarily to delay the proceedings and was filed with malafide intention. Thus, the Court dismissed the application with costs of Rs. 100/-. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arjun Singh (supra). The Court held as under:-
“Scope of the principle of res judicata is not confined to what is contained in Section 11 but is of more general application. Again, res judicata could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits. If the court which rendered the first decision was competent to entertain the suit or other proceeding and had therefore, competency to decide the issue or matter, the circumstance that it is a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction or one from whose decision no appeal lay would not by themselves negative the finding on the issue by it being res judicata in later proceedings. Where the principle of res judicata is invoked in the case of the different stages of proceedings in the same suit, the nature of the proceedings, the scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision being reached, as well as the specific provisions made on matters touching such decision are some of the material and relevant factors to be considered before the principle is held applicable.
xx xx xx xx
Such orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new situations which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does not apply to the findings on which these orders are based, though if applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has once been disposed of, the Court would be justified in rejecting the same as an abuse of the process of the Court.
7. In other words, the principles of res judicata would not be applicable to interlocutory orders where there is no fresh reason on ground or fact disclosed by the applicant to avoid the application of this principle. The provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with miscellaneous proceedings state that a procedure provided in the Code for the suits can be made applicable, as far as it can be to the miscellaneous proceedings and it can be before the Court of civil jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 141 have to be construed keeping in mind the provisions of Section 11 of the code of Civil Procedure. The principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata, thus, would be applicable even to interlocutory proceedings if they had decided an issue between the parties. Disclosure of fresh facts which are subsequent to filing of the earlier application as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court above, may be a ground for carving out an exception to the application of this rule. The concept of finality would be applicable even to the interlocutory orders passed by the court during the pendency of the suit to avoid multiplicity of litigation and further to avoid frivolous and vexatious litigations is the underlying feature of the procedural law.
8. In the present case, firstly the applicant had no case on merit of these applications. The applications were certainly an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner obviously cannot be permitted to file application after applications on the same reason and grounds merely by changing the language of the application. In the present case the certified copies of the documents are admissible in evidence. They were not only admitted but were actually exhibited as D-2 to D-6 on the statement of the defendant-applicant himself. While passing the earlier order dated 7.4.1998 dismissing the application of the petitioner herein the Court had duly noticed the contention that there were additions and alterations in the jamabandies proposed to be subsequently produced on record. The court had specifically noticed that the copies on record were complete and legible to show the entries and serve the purpose of the Court. The most important feature in the present case is that against the order dated 7.4.1998 the petitioner had preferred a revision before the High Court. The High Court vide its order dated 22.7.1998 held as under: –
“While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the learned Civil Judge observed that “a careful perusal of jamabandies which were earlier placed on record by the defendant, also show that they are complete in all respects and are legible and include all the entries and serve the purpose of the Court.” Thus, it is clear that the jamabandies which have been marked as D-2, D-3, D-5 and D-6 have already been in good condition and, therefore, there is no need to file any fresh jamabandies. To my mind, this application is filed only to delay the proceedings. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. I do not see any grounds warranting interference with the order of the learned Civil Judge.
This Civil Revision-therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
9. It is stated before me that the order of the High Court dated 22.7.1998 was not assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India and has become final between the parties. Thus, in the fact of the order, the present application has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court in addition to the above reasons. The subsequent application and even the present revision is an abuse of the process of law. They primarily intend to delay the conclusion of the suit which is already pending at the argument stage.
For the reasons aforestated, this revision is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.