S.B. Sinha, J.

This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 7.7.90 passed by Shri Yogendra Prasad, Subordinate Judge 1st Court Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 50 of 1981; whereby and whereunder the said learned Court allowed an application for amendment of plaint filed by the opposite party.

2. The fact of matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The opposite party filed the aforementioned T.S. No. 50 of 1981 inter alia, for a decree for specific performance of contract.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff contended that an agreement for sale dated 21.5.1980 was entered into by and between the parties to the suit and in terms thereof the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 32,000/- and the defendant undertook to complete the sale on or before 21st May, 1981 on receipt of Rs. 3000/- which was the balance amount of consideration.

5. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant delivered the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in part performance of the contract.

6. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plaint on 13.11.89 wherein inter alia, it was prayed that the plaintiff be put in khas possession over the suit property through court by evicting the plaintiff, his men and agents whosoever there be, at the Court of the defendant.

By reason of an order dated 12.12.89 which is contained in Annexure-3 to the civil revision application, the said prayer was disallowed.

7. The plaintiff thereafter filed another application for amendment of plaint which is contained in Annexure-4 to the civil revision application wherein the plaintiff proposed for the following amendments in the plaint:

"(I) In the category of defendant, before the name of Sri Fakirchand Sahu the figures 1' be prefixed and after the name and address of defendant No.1, the following be added as parties as below :

"2. Nuncuchand Agarwal, 3. Nemichand Agarwal, 4. Gulab chand Agarwal, Sons of Fakir Chand Agarwal.

5. Durga Prasad son of Charan Sao, Gola Road.

6. Bigu Thakur son of Budhan Thakur.

7. Dassain Sonar son of name not known

No. 6 and 7 of Lohar Tola Road, AND All resident of Ramgarh P.O.P.S, Ramgarh District-Hazaribagh ____ Defendants 2nd Party.

(II) In para 8 of the Plaint. At the end of the part of the Sentence and delivered possession...... ...of the contract" be deleted.

(III) At end of para 9 of the plaint the full stop be converted into a "Coma" and the words Both orally and by several writings be inserted.

(IV) After para 14 a new para (14a) be added as below :

"(14a) That the defendants 2nd party were set up on portions of the suit premises by the defendant No.1 during peddency of the suit who are to be also bound by the result of this suit and as such are made parties to obviate any future objection.

(V) That word "defendant" In para 15(a) be substituted by the words "defendant No. 1".

(VI) That at the end of para 15(b) of the plaint, the following words "Ready for payment" be substituted by the words "in Court deposit under Chalan No. 308 dated 1.12.82" and after the above the following be added “and the plaintiff be put in possession of the suit property through Court at the costs of defendant.”

8. By reason of the impugned order the said application was allowed.

9. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a short question in support of the civil revision application.

The learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the earlier prayer for amendment of plaint prayed for by the plaintiff having been rejected by the aforementioned order dated 12.12.89, the another application for amendment of plaint as contained in Annexure- 4 to the civil revision application was barred under the principles of res judicata.

The learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of this court in Puranmal Bajoria v. Nagarmal and other reported in AIR 1980 patna 143.

10. Mr. B.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-party, on the other hand, submitted that in a suit for specifi