THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.NO.1081 & 606 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER Since the issue that arises for consideration in these two revision petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of together by this common order. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 21-12-2006 in E.A.Nos.489 & 491 of 2006 in E.P.No.102 of 2004 in O.S.No.71 of 2000 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, wherein the said applications filed under Order 21 Rule 58 and Section 151 C.P.C by the applicants were allowed with a direction to the parties to get ready for enquiry. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents. Perused the records. The petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.71 of 2000 against the second respondent and the same was decreed. The petitioner filed E.P.No.102 of 2004 for execution of the decree. The first respondent herein earlier filed E.A.No.435 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC for adjudication of his claim. The said petition was dismissed for default on 18-07-2006. The first respondent filed E.A.No.362 of 2006 for restitution of E.A.No.435 of 2005. The said application was also dismissed after enquiry on 14-11-2006. The said order was not challenged and the same became final. While the matter stood thus, the claim application filed by the first respondent stood dismissed. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a fresh application in E.A.No.489 of 2006 for the same relief under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The petitioner opposed the said application on the ground that in view of dismissal of the earlier application, the said application is not maintainable. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order ignored the said objection and directed the parties to get ready for enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed. Admittedly, the earlier application in E.A.No.435 of 2005 was also filed for the same relief under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C and in respect of the same property. The dismissal of the said application has become final as the petition filed in E.A.No.362 of 2006 for restoration of E.A.No.435 of 2005 was also dismissed. Without challenging the said order any further, the first respondent chose to file the applications E.A.No.489 of 2006 and 491 of 2006 for the self same relief, which is not permissible under law. Learned counsel for the first respondent would rely upon the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court i n The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. V.Krishnaswami and another[1], wherein it was held that “Dismissal of proceeding by Tribunal for default of appearance and not on merits-Order does not operate as res judicata in subsequent suit” In the above decision, the question that arose for consideration was whether the doctrine of res judicata is not confined to a decision in a suit but is applicable to other proceedings before a Tribunal. The principle laid down in the above decision that the decision of the Tribunal dismissing the proceedings for default would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit before a Civil Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the two applications filed by the first respondent are before the same Executing Court and for the same relief and in respect of the same property. Learned counsel for the first respondent would rely upon a decision reported in Anthony v. Kunjavarankutty Hajee and another[2] wherein it was held that any subsequent claim petition is not barred by res judicata as no material was placed before the Court as to the nature of the dismissal of earlier application . In the above case, it was contended that the earlier claim petition was withdrawn. But, however, no material was placed in support of the said plea and no circumstances were also put forward showing withdrawal of the earlier petition. Under those circumstances, the said claim petition was held to be not barred by res judicata and the matter was remanded to the court for fresh decision. Admittedly, the earlier claim petition was dismissed for default. Not only the earlier application was dismissed for default but also the application filed for restoration of the said petition was also dismissed after enquiry. The question of filing second claim petition for the self same relief does not arise especially when the earlier dismissal order reached finality. The decision cited is therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case. If the contention of the learned counsel for the first petitioner is to be accepted, then there would be no end to the litigation and petition after petition gets filed for the same relief notwithstanding the earlier dismissal, which can never be the purpose or intendment of law. In the circumstances, the objection raised by the petitioner herein against the maintainability of the application and directing the parties to get ready for enquiry is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. In the result, the civil revision petitions are allowed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Rkk Dated: 28-1-2011 [1] AIR 1975 Madras 167 [2] AIR 2003 Kerala 45