A subsequent objection petition filed by judgment-debtors on the same grounds as a previous petition that was dismissed for default and where a restoration petition was also rejected, is barred by the principle of res judicata.

S. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE decree-holder is the appellant in this miscellaneous appeal arising out of proceedings under section 47, C. P. C. against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court accepting the objection raised by the judgment-debtors. The decree, under execution, is one for maintenance and was passed on 5th December 1956. Execution case was started in the year 1955 for arrears of maintenance of past three years prior to the institution of the execution petition. The judgment-debtors filed a petition under Section 47, C. P. C. which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 100 of 1956 wherein the judgment-debtors took the objection that the decree was barred by limitation and further execution could not proceed as the decree had been fully satisfied. This petition under Section 47 was dismissed for default on 16th July 1956 in the presence of the decree-holder. Thereafter the judgment-debtors filed a petition for restoration of Misc. Case No. 100/1956. It was ordered by the executing court that the original miscellaneous case was to be restored on payment of costs by the judgment-debtors and the costs not having been paid the petition for restoration also was rejected. Thereafter the judgment-debtors filed another objection petition under Section 47 on self same ground which has bean numbered as Misc. Case No. 211 of 1957. The present appeal arises out of that miscellaneous case No. 211 of 1957. The executing court rejected the objection raised by the judgment-debtors on the ground that it is barred by the principle of res judicata on account of the previous case having been dismissed for default in the presence of the decree-holder and the restoration petition also having been rejected. The lower appellate Court, however, has allowed the objection raised by the judgment-debtors that the execution case is barred by limitation and found that the objection raised by the judgment-debtors is not hit by the mischief of res judicata. So the present miscellaneous second appeal by the decree-holder.

( 2 ) THE position is indisputable that the principle of res judicata including constructive res judicata applies to execution proceedings also. In my view, the present miscellaneous case No. 211 of 1957 based on a fresh objection petition filed by the judgment-debtors on the self same ground is barred by the principle of res judicata as the previous miscellaneous case No. 100 of 1956 was dismissed for default in the presence of the decree-holder and the restoration petition filed by the judgment-debtors was also rejected. To hold otherwise will be to frustrate the very fundamental basis of the provisions of res judicata as there will be no finality to any proceeding at all. The judgment-debtors raised the same objection in the previous miscellaneous case; even though full opportunities were given to them they were not in a position to press the objection and as such it was dismissed in the presence of the decree-holder. Thereafter the judgment-debtors made an attempt for restoration and continuance of the previous Misc. case; but they failed in that attempt for their own difficulty as they did not pay the costs. Now again to allow them to raise the same objection in another miscellaneous case in the same execution case would simply mean to ignore all the previous stages of the execution proceedings which will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It will encourage not only negligence and want of vigilance on the part of the litigants but also to have no finality and sanctity to the pro ceedings in Court. When the objection petition filed in the first instance, was concluded by the orders of the competent court, the orders having been passed in accordance with law and full opportunities having been given to the parties before passing the orders, the orders must be taken to be conclusive and binding for all purposes as between the parties. The decree-holder, in my view, is fully competent to rely upon the basic princi