The principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16. 6. 2007 passed in Appeal From Order No. 320 of 2007 by a division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby and whereunder an appeal from an order dated 12. 4. 2007 passed by City Civil Court, Bombay in notice of Motion No. 944 of 2007 rejecting an application for injunction filed by them was dismissed.

( 3 ) APPELLANTS are said to have become owners of the suit land by reason of a deed of gift, which is said to have been executed by Mrs. Tara Sarup on 30/3/1968 in favour of the first appellant. Indisputably, Respondents claim their right, title, interest and possession on or over the land in suit in terms of an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the appellants herein in their favour on or about 23/10/1969.

( 4 ) APPELLANTS' case in relation to the said agreement for sale are :

(a) It is a forged document. (b) In any event, the plaintiff No. 1 being minor on the date of execution of the agreement (his date of birth being 8. 3. 1952), the same is void in law.

( 5 ) THE claim of the respondents, on the other hand, is that out of the amount of consideration mentioned in the said agreement, namely rs. 90,000. 00, a sum of Rs. 80,000. 00 has already been paid and they were put in possession thereover in part performance thereof, as envisaged under section 53a of Transfer of Property Act.

( 6 ) VARIOUS proceedings appear to have initiated before the Revenue courts in regard to inclusion of the name of the respondents in the Revenue records. It is further accepted that the first appellant herein had executed three deeds of assignment in favour of the second appellant herein on or about 29/6/1991. A suit was filed by the appellants before the City Civil Court, Bombay which was marked as Suit No. 4962 of 2006 claiming, inter alia, for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from creating any right in or over the suit land on the basis of revenue entries as also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and occupation thereupon. In the said suit, the appellants took out a notice of motion marked as notice of Motion No. 3551 of 2006 and by order dated 13. 10. 2006, learned judge, City Civil Court, Bombay refused to grant an order of injunction, inter alia, holding :

(i) The contentions advanced by the defendants are of much substance inasmuch as in view of the execution of the agreement for sale, the onus was upon the plaintiffs to get the said documents cancelled and treated as null and void. Such a prayer having not been made, mere relief for injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs cannot give rise to existence of prima facie case for grant of relief at the interlocutory stage. (ii) The cardinal rule being that possession follows title, the plaintiff proceeded under the assumption that he had assigned the suit property to plaintiff No. 2 who is a builder and developer and that plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 3 are said to be protecting the property. (iii) The alleged threat of dispossession given by the defendants to the plaintiffs being towards the end of May 2006, no details thereabout had been stated in the plaint and in that view of the matter also the plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case. (iv) After a report was prepared by the Revenue Officer, allegedly the defendants were found to be in possession. As the plaintiffs had not challenged the agreement of sale dated 23. 10. 1969 whereunder only the defendants had been claiming their right, validity thereof or otherwise would be pre-judging the case at that stage. It was also found that the plaintiffs had not approached the court with clean hands.

( 7 ) APPELLANTS thereafter filed an application for amendment of plaint. They also preferred an appeal against the said order dated 13/10/2006 in the high Court of Judicature at Bombay. The said appeal, ho