1 WP 2225/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2225 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 15th July 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18 February 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khandala rejecting the petitioner’s application for appoint of Taluka Inspector of Land Records (T.I.L.R.) as Court Commissioner. 2. The petitioner filed a suit against the 2 WP 2225/10 respondent for a declaration of his ownership and also for removal of encroachment alleged to be committed by the respondent. Initially, the petitioner made an application at Exhibit-26 for appointment of a Court Commissioner. By an order dated 25 August 2006, the application was rejected. Instead of challenging that order for whatever reason, the petitioner after amending the plaint made another application for appointament of a Court Commissioner at Exhibit-50. By an order dated 18 February 2010, that application was rejected. That order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. In my view, the petitioner could have challenged the order dated 25 August 2006 rejecting the petitioner’s application for appointment of a Court Commissioner. He did not do so. He filed the second application for the very same relief. The second application for appointment of Court Commissioner 3 WP 2225/10 obviously would not be maintainable. Principle of res judicata applies between two stages of the same proceedings, that is to say once an application for a particular relief is rejected, an application for the very same relief cannot be made at a later stage in the very proceedings. This is not a case wherein there is change of circumstances requiring reconsideration of the same relief. Since the second application was not maintainable, the learned trial judge committed no error in rejecting the application. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)