The principle of res judicata applies at different stages of litigation, and failure to challenge prior decisions precludes subsequent applications on the same issues.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for private respondents no.2 & 3 on caveat. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the DDC, Bahraich whereby an application moved by the petitioner dated 28.03.2024 has been disposed of in terms of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private respondents no.2 & 3 had filed a revision before the respondent no.1. The said revision was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Upon notice of the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed an application dated 23.03.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No.8 to the petition. In terms of the said application, it was urged by the petitioner that the revision is barred by limitation and this issue of limitation should be considered as a preliminary issue and be decided first. On the said application, the Presiding Officer, by means of order dated 30.03.2022, passed an order that all the issues shall be considered and fixed the application for hearing on 13.04.2022.

4. Once again, the petitioners moved an another application dated 28.03.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No.9 to the petition, wherein the petitioners again raised the issue of limitation and that it must be decided first as a preliminary issue and they also referred to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Cosolidation and Others (2022) SCC OnLine All 107. This application dated 28.03.2024 came to be disposed of by means of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 wherein the court rejected the same on the ground that even earlier a similar application was moved by the petitioner which already had been disposed of.

5. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner has approached this Court and it has been primarily argued that the first application moved by the petitioner on 23.03.2022 was not disposed of and was rather pending, however, the same has been misconstrued by the respondent No.1 and it has erroneously treated the earlier application to be rejected, consequently, the second application was also rejected which is per-se incorrect and against the second.

6. This as per the learned counsel for the petitioners is an error which cannot be sustained as the impugned order is against the record and in such circumstances, after setting aside the order dated 30.07.2024, an appropriate direction be issued to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the preliminary issue raised by the petitioners prior to the hearing of the revision on its merits.

7. Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the caveator has refuted the aforesaid submission and has pointed out that the alleged application which is said to have been moved by the petitioner on 28.03.2024, was preceded by another application which was moved by the petitioner on 19.02.2024 wherein a similar prayer was made as made in the application dated 28.03.2024. It has been urged that the petitioners have deliberately not brought that application on record inasmuch as the said application was decided by a cogent and reasoned order dated 15.03.2024 which has also not been brought on record and to the notice of Court apart from the fact that in the entire pleadings there is not even a whisper of the aforesaid facts. It is urged by Shri Sahai that once the application moved by the petitioner dated 19.02.2024 had been decided in terms of the order dated 15.03.2024, it was not open for the petitioners to have moved the same application based on the same cause of action without first assailing the order dated 15.03.2024. It is in the aforesaid context, it is urged that the instant petition is not maintainable and apart from this fact it also suffers fr