IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3725 OF 2011 Date:19.09.2011 Between:- Khaza Bee .. Petitioner And Maldar Mahaboob Sab and others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the order, dated 20.06.2011, in C.F.R.No.2743 of 2011 in unnumbered I.A. of 2011 in I.A.No.206 of 2006 in O.S.No.38 of 1965, whereunder and whereby, the petition was rejected as not maintainable. 2. One Khatoon Bee filed O.S.No.38 of 1965 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni for partition and separate possession against her brother Beldar Mahaboob Sa, two cousin brothers and her sisters by name Khader Bee (defendant No.4) and defendant Nos.5 to 9, who are the children of Nanne Sab, and the same was dismissed on 31.03.1967. Aggrieved thereby, she filed A.S.No.95 of 1968 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool and the same was allowed on 07.07.1970. A preliminary decree was passed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/13th share and in not declaring the shares of other parties. The petitioners filed I.A.No.95 of 2004 for amendment of decree and judgment and the same was allowed on 13.09.2005. The petitioners/claimants are the grand children of defendant No.4 i.e., B.Khader Bee. B.Khader Bee had two sons namely Khasim Sab and Mohammed Ali and they died leaving behind the petitioners as their legal heirs. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are sons of late Khasim Sab and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are son and daughter of late Mohammed Ali. The registered gift deed, dated 12.05.1952, executed by defendant No.4 in favour of petitioners shows that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the grandsons and granddaughter of defendant No.4. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 in I.A.No.95 of 2004, who are petitioner Nos.6 to 12 in I.A.No.206 of 2006, legal heirs of petitioner No.4 in I.A.No.206 of 2006 i.e., Shoukat Ali, who is alleged to be the son of defendant No.4, are not the legal heirs of defendant No.4, and so, the question of adding the legal heirs of said Shoukat Ali as petitioner Nos.6 to 12 does not arise. The adding of respondent Nos.1 to 7 as petitioner Nos.6 to 12 as legal heirs of petitioner No.4 in I.A.No.206 of 2006 is only to defraud the rights of real legal heirs of defendant No.4. The petitioners in I.A.No.95 of 2004 are the legal heirs of sons of defendant No.4 and they are having equal share over the petition schedule property and respondent Nos.1 to 7 are not at all entitled to share in the final decree proceedings. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 in I.A.No.95 of 2004 are with an ulterior motive of grabbing the petition schedule property. Hence, the petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The present application is filed to delete the name of J.Shoukat Ali and his legal heirs as petitioner Nos.6 to 12 in I.A.No.206 of 2006 in O.S.No.38 of 1965. The same was rejected on the ground that the self same prayer was sought for by respondent Nos.22 to 24 and 26 in I.A.No.516 of 2011 and by reasoned order, dated 10.06.2011, the trial Court rejected the said petition. The trial Court rejected to delete the names of respondent Nos.4 and 6 to 12 in I.A.No.516 of 2011 and that order has become final. The doctrine of resjudicata is based on the need and necessity of giving finality to judicial decisions. There is no reason why the doctrine should not be made applicable to orders at different stages of the same trial. If the principle is not made applicable to interlocutory orders, the very purpose of doctrine would be defeated. Therefore, the petitioner, who is a party to the order in I.A.No.516 of 2011, cannot be permitted to file another application for grant of the self same relief. If the petitioner is aggrieved by earlier order, the remedy is otherwise. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to her under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th September, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3725 OF 2011 Date:19.09.2011 AMD