JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 18.5.1989 passed by Sri Prakash Chandra, Special Judge, Mathura in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1987 (arising out of Original Suit No. 8 of 1983) rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The facts leading up to this writ petition may briefly be stated as follows: "Shop No. 436 (Old No 389) situate in Syed Bazar, Pratap Bazar, Vrindaban, Mathura is the subject matter of the present litigation. Suit No. 8 of 1983 was filed by Shyam Sundar Gupta ans Shiv Narain (Petitioners) against Sri Krishan Ballabh and three others for a declaration that they were in possession of the accommodation in suit as a tenant of Thakur Giridhar Gopalji installed in Kishorpura, Vrindaban (Mathura) and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the accommodation in Suit otherwise then in due course of law. The Suit was contested by the defendant No. 4, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, with the allegation that formerly defendants No. 1 to 3 (Krishna Ballabh, Radha Raman and Gopi Nath) were the owners of the shop in Suit. The shop in Suit was transferred by these defendant in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Devi (Defendant No. 4) through a registered sale deed dated 7th June, 1982. In order to avoid unnecessary controversy on the question in Thakur Giridhar Gopalji was the owner of the shop in Suit, a supplementary sale deed was also executed by Krishan Ballabh, Radha Raman and Gopi Nath in their capacity as Sebait of Thakur Giridhar Gopalji on 24.2.1983. 3. Suit No. 8 of 1983 was not contested by defendants No. 1 to 3. 4. Another Suit i.e. Suit No, 72 of 1983 was filed by Smt. Shakuntla Devi for a declaration that she was the owner of the shop in suit as well as for the possession over the shop in Suit after eviction of Shyam Sunder Gupta and Shiv Narain from the premises in question. This Suit was contested by Shyam Sunder Gupta and Shiv Narayan. Both the suits were consolidated and were decided by Sri D.K. Singh, II Additional Munsif Mathura by a common judgment on 24.2.1987. Suit No. 8 of 1983 was dismissed and Suit No. 72 of 1983 was decreed against Shyam Sunder Gupta and Shiv Narayan. 5. This Suit was contested by Shyam Sunder Gupta and Shiv Narayan. Both the suits were consolidated and were decided by Sri D.K. Singh, II Additional Munsif Mathura by a common judgment on 24.2.1987. Suit No. 8 of 1983 was dismissed and Suit No. 72 of 1983 was decreed against Shyam Sunder Gupta and Shiv Narayan. 5. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree, Shyam Sunder Gupta ans Shiv Naryan filed appeal civil Appeal No. 46 of 1987. This appeal was transferred to the court of Prakash Chand, Special Judge. During the course of hearing an application for amendment of the plaint (26-A) was moved by the appellants. This application was opposed and a written objection (32-C) was filled by Smt. Shakuntla Devi Learned Special Judge rejected the application for the amendment of the plaint. Aggrieved by the order, the application have come in this writ petition. 6. I have the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the affidavit and documents on the record. The case of the petitioners appears to be that one Sohan Lal was the original Sebait of the temple Thakur Giridhar Gopalji. Sohan Lal had brought one Kamal Swarup to the Trust and after the death of Sohan Lal, Kamal Swarup became the Sebait. Kamal Swarup was married to Smt. Kapoori and Krishan Ballabh, Radha Raman and Gopi Nath were their sons. After the death of Kamal Swarup, Krishna Ballabh and others became the Sabait of the trust in question. Initially Jamuna Das was the tenant of the shop in question on behalf of Thakur Giridhar Gopalji. He died leaving behind his widow, Laxmi Devi and sons Shyam Sunder and Krishna Gopal. Shiv Narayan is the son of Shyam Sunder Krishana Gopal did not marry and adapted Shiv Narayan. After the death of Smt.Laxmi Devi, Syam Sunder and Shiv Narayan became the tenants of the shop in question. On an earlier occasion Krishna Ballabh applied for the release of the shop in question claiming the shop to be the property of Thakur Giridhar Gopalji. This application was rejected. Thereafter Smt. Kapoori, Krishan Ballabh, Radha Raman and Gopi Nath had applied for the release of the shop in question under Section 21 of U.P. Act no. On an earlier occasion Krishna Ballabh applied for the release of the shop in question claiming the shop to be the property of Thakur Giridhar Gopalji. This application was rejected. Thereafter Smt. Kapoori, Krishan Ballabh, Radha Raman and Gopi Nath had applied for the release of the shop in question under Section 21 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 claiming the shop to be their own property, but this application was rejected as not pressed because the shop in question was transferred in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Devi before the application under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act could be disposed of finally. 7. The contention of the petitioners counsel is that the order of the Special Judge, Mathura rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint was bad in law. On the other hand the contentions of respondent No. 5 are that the order in question are perfectly legal, valid and justified. The application for amendment of the plaint was also barred by principle of res judicata. 8. I will deal with the second contention of respondents counsel first. When the Suit was pending in the court of Munsif, art application (179-A) was moved by the plaintiff (Petitioners) for the amendment of the plaint. The prayer was that Thakur Giridhar Gopalji may be impleaded as a necessary party to the Suit and the sale deeds dated 27.4.1982 and 24.2.1983 be declared illegal. This application for amendment was opposed and was finally rejected on merits by the learned Munsif on 17.12.1986. Not satisfied with the order of rejection of application (179-A) the plaintiff went in revision Civil Revision No. 13 of 1987 and their revision application was also dismissed by Sri V.N. Pandey District Judge, Mathura vide judgement and order dated 17.1.1987. The plaintiff were not contended with the dismissal of their revision application and came to this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition and their Writ Petition No. 18007 of 1987 was dismissed after hearing both the parties. It is significant to note that tine prayer for amendment in application (179-A) was that the two sale deeds dated 27.4.1982 and 24.2.1983 be declared illegal. Now the petitioners want to add the relief through their amendment application (26-A) that these two sale deeds dated 27.4.1982 and 24.2.1983 be cancelled. It is significant to note that tine prayer for amendment in application (179-A) was that the two sale deeds dated 27.4.1982 and 24.2.1983 be declared illegal. Now the petitioners want to add the relief through their amendment application (26-A) that these two sale deeds dated 27.4.1982 and 24.2.1983 be cancelled. For reasons best known to them to the plaintiffs no more want to implead Thakur Giridhar Gopalji as a necessary party to the Suit. A declaration to the effect that a particular sale deed is illegal or void covers the relief of the cancellation of the said sale deed. The prayer for cancellation of the also deed is no doubt different for the prayer of declaring the same illegal, but the end result is the same. The petitioners had a fairly long innings when the Suit was at the trial stage. Regarding their prayer for the amendment of the plaint in respect of these two sale deeds dated 27.4.1982 and 24.2.1983 they failed upto the stage of High Court and now they want to achieve the same goal by just changing the wordings of the relief. In my opinion the petitioners cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter by moving another application for amendment of the plaint. The principle of res judicata applies not only to subsequent proceedings but also to a subsequent stage in the same proceedings. In this connection I may cite the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Y.B. Patil & others v. Y.L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392 with advantage. "It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings, once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding." 9. The application for amendment of the plaint moved by the petitioner, on the earlier occasion was rejected, and even if it is considered for the sake of arguments that the order rejecting the application was erroneous in law, it is now settled law that erroneous decision on question of law operate as res judicata. The application for amendment of the plaint moved by the petitioner, on the earlier occasion was rejected, and even if it is considered for the sake of arguments that the order rejecting the application was erroneous in law, it is now settled law that erroneous decision on question of law operate as res judicata. In this connection the following observations of the Supreme Court of India made in the case of Mohan Lal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukharjee and others, AIR 1953 SC 65 may be cited with advantage: "There is ample authority for the proposition that even an erroneous decision of a quest of law operates as 'res judicata' between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no hearing upon the question weather or not it operates as 'res judicata'. 10. In view of the above discussion it is obvious that the present application of the petitioner for the amendment of plaint was barred by principles of res judicata. 11. It will not be out of place of motion here that on an earlier occasion the case of the petitioners in their objections (Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit), which was filed by them before the Rent Control Officer in the proceedings started upon the application of Krishna Ballabh and others for the release of shop in Suit, was that Thakur Giridhar Gopalji was not the owner of the shop in suit. Now the plaintiffs in their amendment application (Annexure-2 to the writ, petition) have taken the case that they were tenants of Thakur Giridhar Gopalji in the shop in Suit arid as such they were entitled to get the two sale deeds in question cancelled. Thus the plaintiffs (Petitioners) have tried to take contradictory stands on the question if the shop in ..... Trust Property of the Trust Thakur Giridhar Gopalji. The contention of the respondents counsel that the sole purpose of the plaintiffs by moving the amendment application (26-A) before the appellate court was to delay the proceedings, was not without force. 12. Coming to the second point raised I may point out. that the appellate court has given its reasons for rejecting the application for the amendment of the plaint. 12. Coming to the second point raised I may point out. that the appellate court has given its reasons for rejecting the application for the amendment of the plaint. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the application was barred by limitation or not because I have already held that the application for amendment of plaint was barred by the principles of res judicata. 13. In this view of the matter the present writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.