ORDER:

The present revision is filed aggrieved by the orders dated

26.12.2022, in un-numbered I.A…. of 2022 in O.S.No.343 of 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The petitioners are the plaintiffs 5 to 7, the 1st respondent is defendant and the respondents 2 to 5 are the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in O.S.No.343 of 2012 filed for permanent injunction.

2. The said application has been filed by the petitioners herein under Order XVI Rule 1 (2) C.P.C praying the Court to summon the concerned Tahasildar to produce the necessary Revenue Records in Survey No.294/1, bearing Patta No.223 of Appikonda Village and also to give evidence regarding the alleged issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in favour of A.Tirupathi Rayudu, in the suit schedule lands. In the present application, the Court has taken an objection that in the previous occasion also an I.A.No.389 of 2022 was filed for the same relief and it was dismissed and as to how this petition is maintainable. The said objection was placed before the Court below and the Court passed orders rejecting the said application holding that it amounts to constructive res judicata. Against which, the present revision is filed.

3. Heard Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration, what has been stated in the gourds, contended that the suit has been filed by the petitioners along with the respondents No.2 to 5 vide O.S.No.343 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for permanent injunction against the first respondent herein. In the said suit, initially, an Interlocutory Application has been filed vide I.A.No.389 of 2022, under Order XVI Rule 1 (2) C.P.C praying the Court to summon the Tahasildar to produce necessary Revenue Records in Survey No.294/1, bearing Patta No.223 of Appikonda Village. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that the application is vague and no reasons were stated so, while asking such relief under its order dated 23.08.2022. In the said circumstances, the present I.A has been filed, as it does not amount to res judicata, by stating all the reasons, for asking such relief. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that, they said I.A. has also been questioned by filing a separate revision vide CRP No.258 of 2023 and in the present application the Court below has taken only one reason that the present I.A. cannot be numbered, as it amounts to constructive res judicata. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the Interlocutory Orders cannot be termed as res judicata. The principle of res judicata does not apply to all the Interlocutory Orders and in support of her submission she relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of ZEENATHUNNISA Vs. MD.ABBAS reported in (1996) 2 ALD

432. Para – 4 reads as follows:

“It was further held:-

"Interlocutory orders are of various kinds; some like orders of stay, injunction or receiver are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the Court usually take. They do not, in that sense, decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. Such orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new situations which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does not apply to the findings on which these orders are based, though if applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has once been disposed of, the Court would be justified in rejecting the same as an abuse of the process of Court. There are other orders which are also interlocutory, but would fall into a different category. The d