The principle of res judicata applies to interlocutory orders where there is no fresh reason or ground disclosed by the applicant to avoid the application of this principle.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 993, contended that principle of res judicata would not be applicable at interlocutory stages of the suit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. To appreciate the merit or otherwise, or this contention, reference to basic facts would be necessary, Smt. Bhagmali, Chahat Ram and Bijender filed a suit for possession of land measuring about 50 kanals 2 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Sarurpur Tehsil Ballabhgarh. The plaintiffs claimed to be owner of the suit land and had terminated the licence in favour of the defendant in the suit. They claimed to have got the suit land by inheritance and having terminated the licence, prayed for cultivatory dispossession of the defendant in the suit the ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant on October 6, 1986. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. However, in appeal the same was set aside. The suit was contested by the defendant. He claimed to have become owner and it was stated that the suit was barred under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act and Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

3. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner herein had produced Exhibits D-2 to D-6 copies of the jamabandies for different years which, according to him, were obtained from Patwari Halka. Earlier an application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 7.4.1998. However, again an application was filed on 28.9.1998 under Order 18 Rule 17-A for seeking leave to lead additional evidence and produce on record the other certified copies of the same documents which allegedly had been obtained by the defendant from the office of Deputy Commissioner. This application was also dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.10.1998. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant in the suit (petitioner herein), has preferred the present revision petition.

4. The learned trial Court noticed that the documents were tendered in evidence by the applicant himself after obtaining the certified copies from the concerned quarters. Whether the documents were correct or incorrect was for the defendant to see before filing the same. Having filed certified copies of the documents on record, the defendant, would hardly be left with any alternative to deny the very same documents while producing fresh copies of the same documents. The Court held that the application was even otherwise not sustainable in view of the principle of res judicata.

5. I have no hesitation in affirming both the reasons given by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Firstly, the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A cannot be construed in a manner which will totally frustrate the very object of fair trial in a suit. Order 18 Rule 17-A is an exception to the general rule that any party to the suit can produce all documents and lead evidence at the later stage in accordance with law. The party must satisfy the Court that there was reasonable grounds for not producing the documents initially and the said documents could not be produced despite due care and caution being taken by the party concerned. In its strict sense this order may not have an application to the facts of the present case. Copies of the jamabandi Exhibits D-2 to D-6 were actually obtained by the defendant himself from the concerned authorities and they were filed on the Court record. The defendant also faced trial on the basis of these documents and in fact the said documents were exhibited during the evidence of the defendant. Now the first attempt of the defendant to wriggle out of the documents produced on record w