IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6357 of 2025

VINOD SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS

Versus

SMT. TARADEVI SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vikram Singh Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Ashish Rawat- Advocate for the respondent [R-2].

Shri Mukund Agrawal - G..A. for the respondents / State.

ORDER amendment application.

By way of present petition challenge is made to the order dated

08.10.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court had allowed the application for amendment in plaint filed by the plaintiff. The present

petition is filed at the instance of the defendants.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has criticized the order of allowing

the amendment on two grounds. The first ground is that an earlier application IA No.2/2023 was filed for the same purpose and it was withdrawn by the plaintiffs and therefore the second application was not maintainable and secondly that by the amendment the plaintiffs have sought

to withdraw certain admissions.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the

plaintiffs who have supported the order of trial Court in allowing the

4. Upon considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, so far as the question of the second application being barred is concerned, it is seen that the plaintiffs had withdrawn the earlier application on 27.03.2025 and on the same date a fresh application had been filed. Therefore, it is not the case that after withdrawing the first application, the second application has been filed as an afterthought. In the present case, the date of filing of second application and withdrawal of the first application is the same and therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs had withdrawn the first application only so as to prosecute the second application which was filed for the same purpose.

5. So far as the plea of res judicata is concerned, it is not in dispute that the res judicata would lie if there had been adjudication on merits in the earlier application. If there had been adjudication of the application and the said application had been decided on merits then the second application would have to be considered as not maintainable. It is settled that the res judicata is applicable between two stages of the same litigation but the question or issue involved must have been decided at the earlier stage of the same litigation.

6. In the present case, there was no adjudication of earlier application and therefore, the second application which was filed at the same time while withdrawing the earlier application, cannot be said to the adjudication of the application. Res judicata in the matter of interlocutory applications cannot be looked into in the manner res judicata is considered under Section 11 CPC. If the earlier application had been adjudicated on merits then second application was obviously not maintainable unless there was change of circumstances however as the earlier application was simply withdrawn while filing an subsequent application at the same time, therefore the question of res judicata would not arise in the case present case.

7. In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. Vs. Deorajin Debi and Another, AIR 1960 SC 941 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when the Court at an earlier stage decides the matter in one way that will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. However, in the present case, there was no adjudication of amendment application. Therefore the plea of the petitioners-defendants that the subsequent application was barred after withdrawal of the earlier application, is discarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-

7. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigatio