Section 141 C.P.C. does not apply to interlocutory applications, such as those for amendment of pleading and addition of parties.

A. SAMBASIVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) AN intersting question of law is raised in these two revision petitions.

( 2 ) IT arises in the following manner: The plaintiff in O. S. 50/67 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court. Kurnool filed two petitions I. A. Nos. 227 and 228 of 19689 the former for amendment of the plaint and the latter to add some more parties as defendants to the suit. On 12-7-68 they were dismissed for default for the non-appearance of the plaintiff. Thereupon, he invoked the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 C. P. C. to his aid and filed on 3-9-1968 I. A. Nos. 347 and 348 for setting aside the orders of dismissal for default in the earlier applications They however, met with the same fate. Once again the plaintiff filed I. A. Nos. 537 and 538 of 1968. one for adding parties and the other for amending the plaint. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dismissed those two petitions holding that the third batch of petitions on the same subject matter would not arise and could not be entertained in view of the fact that I. A. Nos. 347 and 348 had bee rejected on merits. Aggrieved by this dismissal the plaintiff has brought the matter to this court in these two revision petitions.

( 3 ) IN the first place Sri R. V. Subbo Rao, appearing for the petitioner contended that neither Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code nor any principle of constructive res judicata could apply to these cases because none of the earlier petition filed on the first occasion had been decided on its merits. This is an obvious proposition and Sri Sadasiv Reddy Learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute this. There is no bar res judicata to the entertainment of the latest set of applications.

( 4 ) BUT then, Sri Sadashiv Reddy, submitted that the petitioner chose to invoke the procedure remitted under Rule 9 of Order 9. C. P. C. by filling applications for setting aside the earlier orders of dismissal for default and he has no right to bring fresh applications in respect of the same reliefs. He relied on the language of Order 9 Rule 9 (1) which is in the following terms:-"where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit and called on for hearing, the Court shall make on order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceedings with the suit,"it is to be noted that this provisions applied only to suits, But the learned counsel refers to Section 141 C. P. C. which says:-"the procedure provided in this code in regard to suits shall be followed, ass far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings, in any court of civil jurisdiction. "basing his argument on this provision Sri Sadasiv Reddy urged that since applications for amendment and addition of parties are proceedings in a court of Civil Jurisdiction the bar contained in Order 9 Rule 9 should apply to them also. The applications in I. A. 227 and 228 for amendment and for addition of parties were earlier dismissed for default and. therefore, by virtue of the bar contained in the fist part of Rule 9 the petitioner was precluded from bringing fresh applications for the same reliefs. Since the later part of the Rule permitted the petitioner to file and application for setting aside the dismissal the availed himself of the remedy and is now precluded from filling fresh applications for the original reliefs.

( 5 ) THOUGH at the first glance this argument appear to be plausible, on a closure scrutiny it does not appear to be well-founded. The application of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is expressly limited to suits. Unless by virtue of Section 141 its scope is extended to petitions like those for amendment and for addition of parties. the bar under Rule 9 cannot be applie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document