A second motion for the same interlocutory relief does not lie in the same court if the circumstances stated are in substance the same as those relied upon in the previous motion.

M. Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This is a petition filed in S.A. No. 1356 of 1961 “to stay further proceedings in E.P. No. 2 of 1962, Munsiff's Court, Perintalmanna, pending disposal of the above Second Appeal and also to direct release of the crops attached on the petitioner's furnishing security". It is stated that the crops referred to in the C.M.P. have been recently attached in execution of the decree of the court below.

2. The appellant-petitioner has already filed C.M.P. No. 7565 of 1961 in the same Second Appeal "to stay the execution of the decree pending disposal of the appeal", and thereon it was ordered "Notice and interim stay of execution of decree for damages". The prayers in the present petition are therefore covered by the prayer in the earlier petition. As held by Lord Chancellor Lord Cottenham in Bristowe v. Needham 47 E.R. 832 where relief of an interlocutory nature has once been moved and disposed of by court a second motion for the same interlocutory relief does not lie in the same court " if the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the motion are in substance the same as those which had been relied upon when the matter was moved before". As the grounds on which stay is now sought, in the present petition, release of crops being merely consequential of a stay of execution, are the same as those mentioned in C.M.P. No. 7565 of 1961, the present motion is unsustainable. It is therefore dismissed.

3. As C.M.P. No. 7565 of 1961 has not been finally disposed of, it is however open to the party to move for appropriate reliefs therein.