Subsequent petition challenging suit as not maintainable constitutes res judicata.

Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.210 of 1986, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, are the revision petitioners.

2. 98 persons joined together in filing the suit against eight defendants, for the following reliefs:

"... to pass a scheme decree:

(a) Directing the defendants 1 to 6 to deliver and handover the industry, M/s.Everest Engineering Works, functioning at Cross-cut Road, Coimbatore, with all its properties, assets, business, machineries, raw materials, stock-in-trade and finished materials to an administrator or a body of administrators to administer and run the same for such period till all creditors are paid in full or until it is wound up, or in the alternative.

(b) To appoint an Administrator or body of Administrators from among the creditors to take an inventory of all the; assets and properties of defendants 1 to 6 and take custody and possession of the same, take a full and complete accounts of M/s.Everest Engineering Works and prepare a list of creditors, sell the assets and properties of defendants 1 to 6 by public sale and distribute the sale proceeds to all the creditors according to law: (c) Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the suit, and pass such and other orders as may be just and necessary and incidental to the main relief claimed above and render justice.“

3. On receipt of summons, defendants 1 to 6 filed a common written statement on 28. 1988.

4. After the pleadings were over, plaintiffs filed l.A.No.364 of 1989, to pass a preliminary decree. A preliminary decree was passed on 28. 1988 and the same was challenged before this Court in C.R.RNo,2478 of 1989. This Court dismissed the civil revision petition and that has became final. Thereafter, two applications were filed by petitioners as I.A.Nos.2201 and 2202 of 1991, one to reject the plaint, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction, and the other to dismiss the suit asnot maintainable. The same were seriously opposed by the plaintiffs, and by the impugned order, the lower court dismissed both the applications.; The said orders are challenged in these revisions.

5. Before proceeding further with the merits of the case, certain facts may be summarised. I have already said that 98 persons filed the suit for appointment of an Administrator. It is seen that on the basis of a preliminary decree passed pursuant to the order in I.A.No.364 of 1989, one Ramasami was appointed as Administrator at the instance of the presents petitioners themselves, and he took charge of all the properties and the assets on 5.l2.1989. In the meanwhile, various creditors have also filed suits against the petitioners including the State Bank of India, for recovery of nearly more than two crores of rupees. All the plaintiffs were creditors of the petitioners, and it is their case that although more than 15 lakhs is due to them and in, the best-interest of all the creditors, they must be permitted to institute the suit for administering the properties and assetsof me petitioners. In fact, the suit was filed in: a representative capacity under O.1, Rule 8, C.P.C. The preliminary decree itself was passed by consent given by the petitioners. Subsequently, the same was challenged before this Court under revision, and the court wanted to see whether the units owned by the petitioners could be revived. Probably, time was granted from time to time. Ultimately, the question of revival did not materialise and this Court also found that it is not worthwhile to give more time to the petitioners for the purpose of settlement or for revival of the unit. While disposing of the revision, in paragraph 3 of the judgment, Ratnam,J., as he then was, has held thus.

”Though this civil revision petition came up for hearing before this Court more than a year ago, repeatedly at the request of different counsel appearing for the petitioners at different times, the matter had been adjourned several times in order to enable the petitioners to explore the possi