1THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.148 of 2010 ORDER: This revision preferred by the plaintiff is directed against the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad in I.A.No.383 of 2009, which application was taken out under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of C.P.C. seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to make local inspection of the suit schedule land and in particular, for locating as to whether the rain water canal is passing through Survey No.151/AA or Survey No.169 of Bandal Nagapur Village, Thamsi Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District. During the course of trial, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has examined himself as P.W.1. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that the rain water canal is situated in Survey No.169 but not in Survey No.154/AA. Therefore, he has taken out I.A.No.383 of 2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for undertaking the local inspection as noticed supra. The said application has been contested by the respondents/defendants. It was specifically urged that in the same suit, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has earlier moved I.A.No.379 of 2005 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner for undertaking local inspection of the suit schedule land and for localization of the rain water canal in Survey No.144/AA. That I.A.No.379 of 2005 was in fact dismissed on 05.09.2005. Even without making any reference to the earlier I.A.No.379 of 2005 moved by the plaintiff himself, the present I.A.No.383 of 2009 has once again been moved under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of C.P.C. Therefore, it was contended by the respondents/defendants that the principle of res judicata, apart from approaching the Court with unclean hands, would fall for consideration. The learned Junior Civil Judge agreed with the contention canvassed by the respondents/defendants that the order passed on 05.09.2005 in I.A.No.379 of 2005 has become final and the relief prayed therein is substantially the same as is prayed for in the present I.A.No.383 of 2009. It is relevant to notice that the principle of res judicata enshrined under Section 11 of C.P.C. would spring into operation, whenever the same relief is sought for, a second time. It is too well settled that once an issue of fact has been judicially determined between the parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and the same issue falls directly in question in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, then such parties should not be allowed to raise the same question all over. Otherwise, there will not be any end to the successive proceedings that would be initiated. In view of this well settled legal principle, no exception can be drawn to the order passed under revision now. However, it is always open to the plaintiff/petitioner herein to lead such evidence as is considered appropriate including summoning the revenue record to establish as to whether the rain water canal is passing through Survey No.151/AA or Survey No.169. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. The interim order dated 22.01.2010 passed by this Court in C.R.P.MP.No.208 of 2010 shall stand vacated. _________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) Date:01.04.2010 JSU