ORDER R.P. Singh, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions and the impugned orders also being common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts of writ petition No. 18884 of 1985, which will be the leading case are that by means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Nth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 1, dated 3rd Nov., 1985 and that passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, dated 13th Dec., 1984, decreeing the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3, Smt. Asghari Begum filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioners on the ground that she is the landlady of the accommodation of which the petitioners are the tenants and that originally the property in suit belonged to Jauwad Ali Shah and on his death house in dispute came to the share of his son Ajhar Ali Shah who sold the same to respondent No. 3 on 24-5- . 1982 and since the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent and in spite of service of notice terminating their tenancy and requiring them to pay the arrears of rent, they failed to do so, the present suit was filed for their ejectment and arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was a waqf property being situate in Kabristan and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. As such, the plea raised by the petitioners was that they are not liable to pay any rent to respondent No. 3 and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Judge, Small Cause Court framed issues on questions of fact and law and since one of the questions raised was whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether there were complicated questions of title involved in the case, the petitioners moved an application under S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act praying for the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the regular side on the ground that it involved complicated questions of title. This application was, however, rejected by the' Judge, Small Cause Court on 1-2-1983 on the ground that there was no complicated question of title involved and this order passed by the Judge, S mall Cause Court dated 1-2-83 on this question became final and thereafter the Judge, Small Cause Court held that the house in suit was the property of Jauwad Ali Shah and upon his death it was inherited by his two sons Majhar Ali Shah and Ajhar Ali Shah and since by a family arrangement the house in dispute fell to the share of Ajhar Ali Shah, he became the full owner of the house in suit and executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 on 24-5-1982 as a result of which the respondent-No. 3 became the owner and landlord of the house in suit and since the petitioners committed default in payment of rent in spite of service of notice and hence the suit for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed on 30-12-1982. Feeling aggrieved,. the petitioners went up in revision before the IVth Additional District Judge who, however, vide his order dated 31-8-85 allowed the revision on the ground that since complicated questions of title were involved and the property in suit was a waqf property and hence directed the return of the plaint to the respondent No. 3 for presentation to the proper Court in view of the provisions of S. 3 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The respondent No. 3, feeling aggrieved, against the order passed in revision, filed a review application before the Additional District Judge, on the ground that the Additional District Judge had committed manifest error apparent on the face of record in ignoring the orders passed on 1-2-83 whereby respondent No. 2 had already rejected the application of the petitioners for the return of the plaint on the ground that S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was not attracted inasmuch as no complicated questions of title were involved in the case and this order having become final, had been completely lost sight of by the Additional District Judge. This review application was ultimately allowed by the Additional District Judge vide his order dated 3-11-85 on the ground that the Additional District Judge had earlier failed to take into consideration the finality of the order between the parties on the question of the application of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and further that the Small Causes Court had also earlier decided a preliminary issue holding that the Sunni Central Waqf Board was not a necessary party in the suit as the site and the house in suit was not a waqf property and the petitioners had already filed a Civil Revision No. 80 of 1984 before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 11-4-84 and in view of the finality of these two decisions, the Additional District Judge held that the same had already become final and hence allowed the review application setting aside the earlier order passed by him dated 31-8-85 and thereby dismissing the revision and upholding the decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court for arrears of rent and ejectment vide his order dated 3-11-1985 which order is in challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Shashi Nandan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the Additional District Judge could not review his earlier order and hence the order passed by him in review dated 3-11-85 is vitiated On the other hand, Sri K.M. Dayal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, contended that the Additional District Judge had earlier committed a manifest error in ignoring the finality of the orders already arrived at between the parties on the question whether the provisions o f S. 23 of the Provincial Small ,Cause Courts Act were attracted or not and further on the finality of the orders on the question that it was not a Kabristan and Waqf Property and hence Waqf of the Sunni Central Board was not a necessary party in the case. Since the Additional District Judge while earlier allowing the revision had completely lost sight of these orders which had become final between the parties, the Additional District Judge by a subsequent order passed in review had simply,remedied the wrong committed by him earlier and hence in view of the settled law that an order even though it may be illegal, cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction if it results in bringing on record another order which is illegal and hence this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties I have to see whether this is a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. A perusal of the impugned order. passed by the Additional District Judge, dated 3rd Nov., 1985 shows that the Additional District Judge seems to have committed a gross error in ignoring the orders that had already become final between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Ann. 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit which is an order passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 1-2-83 whereby the Court had already held that no complicated questions of title are involved in the present case and hence it is not a case. where the plaint may be ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. No doubt the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court has jurisdiction, where it is satisfied that intricate questions of title are involved but he had already held vide his order dated 1-2-83 that no intricate questions of title are involved and hence the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act are not attracted to the present case. It was held further that there was no reliable evidence to show that the property in suit was waqf property and consequently that plaint was not liable to be returned under S. 23 of the Act. This order passed. by the Judge, Small Cause Court having not been in challenge in revision, the same became final under S. 27 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and hence binding on the parties. Hence this order could not be reopened at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. This order passed. by the Judge, Small Cause Court having not been in challenge in revision, the same became final under S. 27 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and hence binding on the parties. Hence this order could not be reopened at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. Hence the Additional District Judge, respondent No. 1, in the order passed in review held that this was an apparent error committed by him as his attention was not drawn to the finality of the order dated 1- 2-83 whereby it was held that the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act were not attracted in the present case, there being no intricate questions of title involved in it and this was one reason given by him for allowing the review and recalling the earlier order passed by him in revision. 7. The other ground given by the Additional District Judge in his order passed in review was that preliminary issue was framed in the case before the Judge, Small Cause Court whether the Sunni Waqf Board was a necessary party in the suit and if the site and the house in suit was a Kabristan and a waqf property. The Judge, Small Cause Court held that it was not a Kabristan property vesting in the Waqf Board and the Sunni Central Waqf Board was not a necessary party in the suit. This order passed by the Judge. Small Cause Court was challenged in Civil Revision No. 80 of 1984 before the Additional District Judge who also dismissed the revision and hence it was finally decided between the parties that Sunni Central Waqf Board was not a necessary party to the suit as there was no evidence on the record to show that the house in suit vested in the Waqf Board. This judgment of the learned District Judge dated 11-4-84 became final between the parties and it appears that this order was also not brought to the notice of the Additional District Judge, respondent No. 1 earlier when he allowed the revision ordering the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court under S. 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act. In view of the finality of the orders arrived at between the parties it became evident that the property was not a Kabristan and it did not vest in the waqf and further that the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act were not attracted. It being so, the plaint could not be ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court and it appears that by the subsequent order passed by the Additional District Judge, he remedied a wrong order passed by him earlier. It has already been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Y.B. Patil v. Y.L. Patil, reported in AIR 1977 SC 392 that the principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they can be got attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of the proceedings became final, it would be binding on the subsequent stage of that proceedings. Hence the order that had become- final between the parties in the proceedings, was binding on the parties in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. The result is that an order passed earlier that no intricate questions of title are involved so as to attract the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and further that the property in dispute is not a waqf property belonged to Sunni Central Board, had become final and binding between the parties and the additional District Judge, respondent No. 3 had committed a manifest error in allowing the revision vide his order dated 31st August, 1985 on the ground that complicated questions of title are involved and hence ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court in view of the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and it is this order which has been remedied and set aside by the subsequent order passed by the Additional District Judge in review vide his order dated 3rd Nov., 1985 and hence this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has already been held by this Court in the case of Mahendra Vikram Singh v. IVth Addl. Dist. It has already been held by this Court in the case of Mahendra Vikram Singh v. IVth Addl. Dist. Judge, Bareilly, reported in (1984) 2 All Rent Cas 361 : 1984 All LJ 1251, that if the second order passed in review could be sustainable in law then it is well settled that an order which is illegal cannot be quashed or set aside in writ jurisdiction if quashing of such an order results in bringing on record another illegal order. In another case of Chater Sen Jain v. District Judge, Dehradun, reported in (1984) 2 All Rent Cas 437, it has been held that it is settled law that if the effect of quashing an order on the ground that it was without jurisdiction would be to restore another which is equally illegal and without jurisdiction, it would not be a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the cases referred to above. Again in the case of Jagannath Prasad v. District Judge, Allahabad, reported in (1987) 1 All Rent Cas 89 : AIR 1987 All 317 , it was held that where the petitioners' application under S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was rejected by the Court and that order became final, it was not open to the petitioner to, move an another application on a similar ground and the principles of res judicata, are applicable to these proceedings. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in any case, the case could be remanded back to the Additional District Judge for recording a finding on the question of default in payment of rent and relationship of landlord and tenant. However, in the present case I find that it was nowhere the case set up by the petitioners that they had paid any rent to the respondent No. 3 since 24-5-82. No evidence at all has been led by the petitioners that they ever paid rent to the respondent No. 3. The Judge, Small Causes Court had already recorded a finding after appraisal of the evidence on record that the petitioners who were defendants in the suit never paid any rent since 24-5-82 and hence committed default in payment of rent since that date. The Judge, Small Causes Court had already recorded a finding after appraisal of the evidence on record that the petitioners who were defendants in the suit never paid any rent since 24-5-82 and hence committed default in payment of rent since that date. In that view of the matter, it will serve no useful purpose for remanding the case to the Additional District Judge to record a finding on the question of default, specially in view of the fact that the Judge, Small Causes Court had already recorded a categorical finding on this issue on appraisal of the evidence on record. On the question of relationship of landlord and tenant also since it is held that it was not a waqf property, as alleged by the petitioners and the petitioners themselves have admitted payment of rent to Jauwad Ali Shah and after the death of Jauwad All Shah his son Ajhar Ali Shah who became sole owner in the family arrangement executed sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 on 24-5-82, the respondent No. 3 clearly became the landlord of the accommodation in dispute and no useful purpose at all will be served in remanding the case to the Additional District Judge in the circumstances of the case. 9.. In the result, there are no merits in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. 10. In the end the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be allowed to the petitioners to vacate the accommodation in dispute and handover peaceful possession of the same to respondent No. 3. In case an undertaking is filed by the petitioners before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 2, within a period of one month from today that they shall vacate the accommodation in dispute and hand over peaceful possession of the same to Smt. Asghari Begum, respondent No. 3, on or before 30th July, 1988, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute till 30th July, 1988. However, in case an undertaking, as stated above, is not filed, it will be open to the respondent No. 3 to execute, her decree forthwith and evict the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute in accordance with law.