JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara in Misc (J) Case No. 59/2018 arising out of T.S. No. 02/2016. The petitioner was the defendant No. 9 in the aforesaid suit.

2. The suit was instituted for declaration of right, title, interest and also had challenged three numbers of Sale Deeds. While the suit was pending, the respondents, as plaintiffs had filed Miss (J) Case No. 22/2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The said petition was however rejected by the learned Court vide Order dated 15.09.2018. Thereafter, another petition under the same provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been filed. The said petition was objected to by the present petitioner by filing a written objection wherein it was stated that the present petition was identical to the earlier petition and therefore, the bar of res judicata would be applicable. However, vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2018, the amendment has been allowed. It is the legality and validity of the said order by which the amendment was allowed by the Court which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

3. I have heard Shri M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents. The materials placed before this Court have been duly perused.

4. Shri Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier application for amendment having been rejected vide order dated 15.09.2018 and the said order not being put to challenge, the respondents plaintiffs were precluded from filing another amendment petition with the same prayer. He submits that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable at various stages of the suit.

5. In support of his submission, Shri Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Prasana Kumar Keshan vs. Pradip Gogoi reported in 2017 (4) GLT 787. In the said case, this Court had laid down that the principles of Respondent judicata would also be applicable in case of an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein below.

“16. The same ground which was rejected earlier by the order dated 03.03.2015 is sought to be introduced by way of amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, it normally falls within the principles of res-judicata which prohibits that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties. It is a well settled proposition of law that the principle of res-judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation.

6. In the said case, reliance was also placed in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 444, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

“11. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re- agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhan vs. Smt. Deorajin Devi AIR 1960 SC 941).”

7. Per contra, Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the doctrine of res judicata would be applicable only when the earlier case is decided on merits. He submits that the contents of the two applications are differen