JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 15th October, 1987, passed by the learned M.J.M (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in civil suit No.734/ 1984. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order dated 15th October, 1987. 3. Non-petitioner plaintiffs challenged the order of termination dated 20th June, 1980, before this Court in a writ petition filed by the non-petitioners which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 599/1981 and the same was decided vide order dated 27-11-1981 and the writ petition was dismissed. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners appellants submitted the appeal before this court and which was dismissed vide order dated 28-7-1982. It was further stated that special leave to appeal No. 7937/82, was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the same was also dismissed on 22-10-1982. It was also submitted that a review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was also rejected. Plaintiff non- petitioners instituted a suit in the court of Addl. Munsiff (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the suit, prayer was made on number of grounds to quash the termination order dated 20-6-1980. A further prayer was also made that the suspension order dated 15-10-1977, and the charge-sheet dated 2-11-1978, should also be quashed. Further prayer was also made that the termination order should be set-aside and the subsequent order passed should also be set- aside. 4. I have gone through the judgment of this court and this court has held that the appellate authority, has arrived at a conclusion that the charges of admission and the acceptance of bribe from the petitioner Bal Chand Danig, Manoharlal, Subhag Mal, Subhash and Navratan stands proved and the appellate authority, has also found that the present non-petitioner is guilty of the acceptance of bribe from Mr. Narain and Hari Narain, jointly and the points raised before this court is its writ jurisdiction were decided and it was found that the petitioner is guilty and there is no infirmity in the punishment awarded to him. This finding of the learned Single Judge, has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. This finding of the learned Single Judge, has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. In this suit, the police officers who have investigated the case have been introduced as a party and some officers of the bank have also been impleaded as additional party. It was stated that there was a malafide action of the officers and the plea cannot be raised in the writ petition and this plea is a new plea as such the non-petitioner plaintiffs should be allowed to raise this plea. It was also submitted hat only the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, were challenged in the writ petition and now the present non-petitioners wants to challenge the suspension order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order passed by the learned M.J.M. (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur. No relief has been prayed against the bank who has been impleaded as a party in the suit. The petitioners have terminated the service of the non-petitioners. Apart from that the order of suspension does not stand after the termination of the service or dismissal of the service or and it automatically comes to an end. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Vijayvargiya, learn i counsel for the non- petitioners has cited before me the case of Nawab Hussain v. The State of U.P. 1969 AIR (Allahabad) 466 . I have gone through the case and I do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Jain, has cited before me the case of State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, 1977 AIR S.C. 1680 . In this case, Their Lordships have held that ordinarily the principles of constructive res-judicata applies petitions. Bank cannot be compelled to obtain the second judgment on the same relief on the same cause of action. Their Lordships have further held that the person should raise the points in he writ petition which are available to him and if he fails to raise the points in the same Writ petition he cannot be allowed to raise the same point again in the civil suit. 9. Their Lordships have further held that the person should raise the points in he writ petition which are available to him and if he fails to raise the points in the same Writ petition he cannot be allowed to raise the same point again in the civil suit. 9. The Principles of estoppel is a rule of needs and it also applies and the non- petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate the matter on a different forum as once he has chosen the forum. A person who has lost the faith of the institution and the person against whom there are allegations of corruption cannot be given an opportunity to raise the point. The very finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is conclusive on this point. 10. In the result, the revision petition is accepted and the order of the learned Munsiff, is set-aside and it is decided that principles of construtive res-judicata will apply and the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter which he has sought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. The revision petition is disposed-of accordingly. 12. Costs made easy.Petition accepted. *******