ORDER
R.R. Yadav, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quasing the judgment dated 13.12.96 Annexure 3 to the writ petition passed by Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2). Heard.
(3). Perused the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
(4). The brief facts which are essential for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit before Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran and also moved an application under Sec. 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 relating to Khasra No. 71 measuring 7 Bigha 6 Biswa which is recorded in the name of the petitioner as well as in the name of his sisters. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 wanted to grab the disputed land, hence prayer was made to appoint Tehsidar, Mangrol as its receiver. The respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Baran after hearing the arguments of plaintiff and defendant both by his order dated 19.7.93 appointed Tehsildar Mangrol as a receiver of the disputed property, a certified copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure/1 to the writ petition.
(5). Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 19.7.93 Annex. 1 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 4 Abdul Sharif filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota who after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 8.3.95, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annex. 2 to the writ petition.
(6). Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 19.7.1993 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran and the order dated 8.3.95 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota defendant- respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 13.12.96 Annex. 3 to the writ petition allowed the revision petition and set aside the aforesaid orders appointing Tehsildar Mangrol as a receiver over the disputed land.
(7). The order impugned dated 13.12.96 Annexure 3 to the writ petition passed by Board of Revenue reveals that the Board of Revenue arrived at a conclusion that in the instant suit prior to moving the present application under Sec. 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for appointment of receiver the petitioner has moved an application earlier under the aforesaid section for appointment of receiver before the trial court which was rejected on 4.11.85. Aggrieved against the order dated 4.11.85 the petitioner filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota which too was dismissed on 10.7.90. It is further revealed from the perusal of the order passed by Board of Revenue Annex. 3 to the writ petition that it is held by Board of Revenue that earlier order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota on 10.7.90 between the parties has attained finality which will operate as res judicata between them in subsequent application moved under Sec. 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver.
(8). It is is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri S.K. Jindal that interlocutory orders like orders of stay, injunction or receiver are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the court usually take. They do not in that sense decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue
in suit and do not put an end to it. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that such interlocutory orders are capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for the same relief. In support of his aforesaid contention Shri Jindal placed reliance on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and others (1).
(9). The aforesaid argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is refuted by the learned counsel for respondents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents supported the order passed by Board of Revenue. He placed reliance on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Dabe and another (2).
(10). I am of the view that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. The principle of res judicata applies to interlocutory orders also between two stages in the same litigation. The principle of res judicata between two stages of the same litigation apply to the trial courts as well to higher courts. If at an earlier stage either a trial court or a appellate court or a revisional court decided a matter between the parties in one way it will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. It is true that on proof of new facts of new situations which subsequently emerges after passing of earlier order trial courts and higher courts both can alter its earlier decision between two stages in the same litigation to meet the ends of justice for which alone the courts of law exist not otherwise. In the present case nothing has been brought to my notice which may lead to believe that new situation has arisen to alter the earlier order rejecting the application under Sec. 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver. No foundation has been laid in the present writ petition, what new situations or new facts had arisen which necessitated the petitioner to move subsequent application u/S 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 after rejection of such application in the same suit earlier by trial court as well as appellate court. I am of the view that controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Dabe and another (supra) and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. The facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Arjun Singh (supra) cited by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of his contention.
(11). A close scrutiny of decision rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh (supra) reveals that the proposition of law propounded by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal (supra) was noticed and approved. In the present case, I found that the order impugned passed by Board of Revenue is in consonance with ratio decidendi propounded by Supreme Court in case of Satyadhyan Ghosal (supra), therefore, I decline to make such order ineffective by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(12). In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the instant writ petition lacks merits and it is hereby dismissed with costs assessed to Rs. 1000.00/-.