S. DASARADHA RAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision brought by the two defendants against the order of the lower Court directing the Advocate Commissioner already appointed in earlier i. A. No. 374 of 1982 to reinspect the suit locality and file his report with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. Earlier on the objections filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the report of the Commissioner, the lower Court directed the Commissioner to revisit the suit land. But as Commissioner s fee was not deposited, mat petition stood dismissed. The order was carried unsuccessfully in the Civil Revision Petition No. 8921 of 1987 dated 10-11-1988. The respondent filed the present I. A. again for appointment of another commissioner. The Court below, while not granting relief for appointment of a second Commissioner, directed the Commissioner already appointed to reinspect the suit locality and to file his report with the assistance of Mandal surveyor and to comply with all objections raised by the respondent earlier and objections, if any, to be raised by the petitioner. This order was subject to the condition of paying costs of Rs. 200/- to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that as the Counsel for the petitioner has received costs of Rs. 200/- from the respondent, the petitioner cannot prefer the Civil Revision Petition. Hehas filed certified copy of the order dated 7-3-1994 showing endorsement on the docket that the costs of Rs. 200/- have been paid by the respondent to the counsel for the petitioner. He has also filed affidavit of the advocate appearing in the lower court to the effect that costs have been paid. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner disputes this, and filed affidavit of the advocate appearing for the petitioner in the Court below. In view of this conflicting affidavits it is not possible to give a finding on this, unless further enquiry is made. However, it is not necessary to pursue this as the Civil Revision Petition fails on merits as can be seen below.

( 3 ) MR. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the earlier dismissal of the petition on the ground of non-deposit of the Commissioner s fee, which was also confirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition, the respondent is barred by the principle of res judicata from seeking the same relief again. He relied on Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar in which it was held:-"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. "it was further held:-"interlocutory orders are of various kinds; some 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 the suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. 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 Court. There are other orders which are also interlocutory, but would fall into a differe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document