1 WP 5949/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5949 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Ms. Deepali Patil i/b Mr. Mandar Limaye for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25 June 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Pune, rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The respondents are the landlords and the petitioner is their tenant. In the 2 WP 5949/10 respondents’ suit for possession, a decree for possession was passed, inter alia, on the ground of bonafide requirement. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement seeking to plead that the respondents had got possession of some premises from other tenants. The application was rejected by the appellate court. The order was confirmed by this Court by an order dated 1 December 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 9616 of 2009, inter alia, on the ground that no details of the premises alleged to have been obtained by the respondents were furnished. Thereafter the petitioner made a second application for amendment pleading the amendment, but this time giving details of other premises alleged to be have been acquired by the respondents from the tenants. That application has also been rejected. That order is impugned in this writ petition. 3 WP 5949/10 4. The writ petition deserves to be rejected for more than one reasons. Firstly, the order is interlocutory and requires no interference. Secondly, the petitioner is not entitled to make successive applications for the very same relief. First application was for amendment of the written statement to add a ground of acquisition of other premises by the respondents landlord from other tenants. That was rejected and the order of rejection was confirmed by this Court. Second application for the similar amendment was not maintainable. It is true that the first application was rejected on ground that details of the premises allegedly acquired by the landlord were not mentioned in the application. In the second application, details of the premises were mentioned but that is no ground for making successive application. The petitioner ought to have given details in the first application itself. Omission to do so would not give rise to file another application. The petitioner cannot be permitted to file second 4 WP 5949/10 application merely because at the first instance he was negligent. No new ground was made out in the second application. The principle of res-judicata applies even in respect of interlocutory orders and at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings before the same Court the first order would operate as res-judicata. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)