ORDER M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. Is the principle of res judicata applicable to an order of dismissal of an application for joint trial? This is the main question arising for decision in this revision. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 473 of 1996 and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 113 of 1998 both of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur. They filed an application for joint trial of the two suits in February, 1998 and it was dismissed as per a common order passed on 17.12.1998. Subsequently, they filed yet another application for the same relief and that was dismissed as per the impugned order finding that the earlier dismissal constituted res judicata for consideration of the second application. 3. Mr. K.V. Sohan, Advocate, who argued the case of the revision petitioners, took the stand that the principle of res judicata, as such, will not apply to procedural matters and that the question of joint trial relates to a matter of procedure. It is also argued by him that in the nature of the case joint trial of the two suits was essential. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent asserts that the bar applied to the case in hand and that the dismissal of the petition as per the impugned order is well justified. 4. O.S.No.473 of 1996 was a suit seeking a permanent injunction retraining the revision petitioners from trespassing into the plaint schedule property; from committing waste therein and in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment and possession of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule. The plaintiffs traced their title to the F.D. passed in O.S. No. 59 of 1981. After filing the written statement in the suit asserting title over the property and after contending that there was no question of granting injunction against them, they filed O.S. No. 113 of 1998 seeking a declaration that the final decree passed in O.S. No. 59 of 1981 in respect of the plaint schedule property and other properties was null and void and that the plaint schedule property actually belongs to plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8 therein. There was also a prayer for injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6 therein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from committing waste therein. 5. There was also a prayer for injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6 therein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from committing waste therein. 5. The joint trial application filed by the present revision petitioners earlier as I.A. No. 781 of 1998 was disposed of by the Court below on 17.2.1998 with the following observations: "If the contention in both suits are one and the same it is not necessary for a joint trial. On the other hand subsequently instituted suits can be stayed under S.10 CPC in view of this previously instituted suit. For that purpose it is not necessary to remove the suit from the list and wait for recently instituted suit (O.S. No. 113/98) to come up for trial which may take quite long time. Under the circumstances I find that these two petitions are not bona fide and as such these two petitions are dismissed." It is the aforesaid order that is relied on as constituting res judicata and justifying dismissal of the second petition as per the impugned order passed on 23.11.1998. 6. The rival contentions have been considered. It is clear from a perusal of the above said order dated. 17.2.1998 that the Court below had not approached the question from the right perspective and bearing in mind the principles governing joint trials. The question whether conflicting decisions are likely to arise; whether joint trial will advance convenience in trial and similar other relevant aspects were not considered in the said order. On the other hand the Court appears to have been mainly influenced by the fact that the motion for joint trial came up at a time when the earlier suit stood listed for trial and the other had only commenced. 7. The Court below, in the said first order on the joint trial petition has taken the view that stay of later suit under S.10 of the CPC will meet the ends of justice. Actually there is something in common between stay of suit under S.10 CPC and a joint trial. Both are intended to prevent unnecessary waste of time of Court; multiplicity of trial; and inconvenience of parties and witnesses. For applicability of both certain conditions are common. They are: (1) The real contesting parties must be the same (2) Determination of rights of parties arising in the two suits must be intimately connected with each other. Both are intended to prevent unnecessary waste of time of Court; multiplicity of trial; and inconvenience of parties and witnesses. For applicability of both certain conditions are common. They are: (1) The real contesting parties must be the same (2) Determination of rights of parties arising in the two suits must be intimately connected with each other. However, more rigorous conditions, as between the two are applicable to stay of suits. Stay will be possible only if matter in issue in the two suits is substantially the same. The condition is not so rigorous in the case of joint trial, and convenience of trial is the predominant factor as far as joint trial is concerned and if common question arise in the two suits joint trial may be justified. The relevant time for consideration of these aspects is the time when motion is made therefore. 8. In the instant case the second motion for joint trial was made several months after the former and there was change of circumstances in the meantime in so far as, by then, written statement also had been filed in O.S. No. 113 of 1998, thereby making the course for trial in the two cases clear. Whether common questions arise in the two suits for decision and whether conflicting decisions are likely to arise also emerge in view of the said development. These aspects had not been considered in the order dated 17.2.1998 and it cannot hence be said that relevant aspects arising for decision in the second application had been decided in the merits in the earlier order. Thus conditions governing res judicata do not appear to apply to the orders in question. 9. The other question of law that arises here is whether the principle of res judicata as such is applicable to orders of joint trial. It is well settled that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to all kinds of interlocutory orders. Interlocutory orders can be of various kinds. Some like Stay, Injunction, Receiver, etc. are intended to preserve status quo during litigation and to ensure that the parties are not prejudiced by the possible delay in the disposal of the proceedings before the Court. They actually do not decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit; nor do they put an end to the Us even in part. are intended to preserve status quo during litigation and to ensure that the parties are not prejudiced by the possible delay in the disposal of the proceedings before the Court. They actually do not decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit; nor do they put an end to the Us even in part. Such orders are capable of being altered or varied in subsequent applications for the same relief; though normally this will be done only when new fact situations emerge. Since they do not impinge upon the legal rights of the parties to the litigation, the principle of res judicata, as such, will not apply to the findings in these matters. Though second or subsequent applications made for the relief on the same basis all over again can be justly dismissed, this is done treating it as an abuse of the process of the Court and not strictly, applying the rule of res judicata. 10. There may be yet another kind of interlocutory orders. These are intended to ensure just, smooth, orderly" and expeditious disposal of suits and not directed to maintain status quo or to preserve the property. Petitions under O.9 R.7 of the CPC for adjournment of cases and the like will fall under this category. Subsequent applications for such reliefs, even if based on the same facts will not be barred on the application of the rule of res judicata, though they can be rejected on the same grounds in which the request was rejected originally. If the rule of res judicata is applicable to a case, the second application will be liable to be rejected irrespective of the question whether afresh facts are placed before court. A fresh investigation would be barred in such cases even if there is change in the fact situation. On the other hand where the principle as such is not applicable, Courts will be justified in disposing of the second petition based on the facts as available at that time. These principles are clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mahindra Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ). 11. Joint trial of cases is done not by virtue of any specific power conferred by the CPC; but in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. These principles are clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mahindra Kumar ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ). 11. Joint trial of cases is done not by virtue of any specific power conferred by the CPC; but in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. Nevertheless, it is a step adopted to ensure just, smooth, orderly and expeditious disposal of suit. As such the same court which decided against joint trial is not bound finally by that order at later stages so as to preclude its being considered. In other words the Rule of Res Judicata does not apply as such to such an order. That however, does not mean that on every subsequent day on which the suit stands adjourned the petition could be repeated and fresh orders sought on identical facts. All the same, if there is change of circumstances or if fresh facts are placed before Court there will be no legal bar for fresh consideration of the question with reference to the new facts and situations. 12. In the instant case, as already mentioned, the earlier order dated 17.2.1998 had not considered the question whether joint trial was feasible and necessary from the correct perspective or in detail. That apart, after passing of that order, there was change of circumstances also. Here is a case where the title traced by the plaintiffs in the earlier suit namely, on O.S. No. 59of 1981 was specifically challenged in the subsequent suit as null and void. That is not a relief which could have been sought in the earlier suit and as such the filing of that suit and raising of issues therein requires a fresh look into the question whether joint trial of the two suits was proper and necessary. The impugned order has not approached this question from that perspective and in that regard it is defective. 13. In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to consider afresh the question of joint trial, applying the relevant legal principles governing the matter including whether common questions arise in the two suits. The convenience in trial will also be borne in mind while passing fresh orders. In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to consider afresh the question of joint trial, applying the relevant legal principles governing the matter including whether common questions arise in the two suits. The convenience in trial will also be borne in mind while passing fresh orders. The Court below will try to dispose of the petition afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.R.P. is disposed of as above.