RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. A second application of the plaintiffs under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, after dismissal of the first application as well as appeal there against before the Division Bench is for consideration.

2. The principle contention of the counsel for the defendant No. 1 is that a second application does not lie and especially after the order dismissing the earlier application for the same relief has merged in the order of the Division Bench in appeal.

3. The factual matrix in which the aforesaid question has arisen is as under. The plaintiffs are the son and daughter of late Shri Des Raj Madan. The only other natural heir of Shri Des Raj Madan, as per the plaintiffs is the defendant No. 2 being the other son of Shri Des Raj Madan and the brother of the plaintiffs. Shri Des Raj Madan was admittedly the owner of property No. 152, Jagriti Enclave, New Delhi. Shri Des Raj Madan is stated to have died on 19th December, 2001 leaving the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 as his only natural heirs. The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 2 are thus after the demise of Shri Des Raj Madan stated to be owners of 1/3rd undivided share each in the af