S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed by the defendant No. 2-petitioner in this Court under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order of the city Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in the Civil Suit 1204/82 below Ex. 247, 248 and 258 dated on 7. 2. 1990. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed a Civil suit No. 1204/82 in the Court of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad inter alia for a decree of rs. 34,04,500/- against the defendant No. 2 petitioner and defendant No. 1-Respondent no. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 contended in the suit that the defendant No. 2-petitioner had signed the cheques On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and said cheques were encashed by the defendant No. 1 respondent No. 2 hence that claim of the total value of such cheques is made by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, against the defendant No. 2.-petitioner and the defendant No. 1-respondent No. 2. The defendant No. 2-petitioner contested the suit. He has come up with the case that the total claim of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 is false. It has further been stated that two similar suits being civil Suits No. 3266/81 and 3608/81 were filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and both the suits were subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. In these facts, the prayer has been made that the present suit is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. To prove these facts of filing of the 2 similar suits by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 earlier and withdrawl of the same, the petitioner wanted to produce the evidence by way of certified copy of the plaint of one suit notice of application for injunction, affidavit-in-reply and pursis for withdrawal the Civil Suit No. 3276/81. So far as the other suit is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the requisite documents have already been produced by the defendant No. 1-respondent No. 2 in the present suit. The certified copies of the aforesaid documents were received by the plaintiff after the issues were framed in suit. He produced documents on the record of the suit with list Ex. 258 on 6. 10. 1989. The petitioner had also presented the applications Ex. 247 and 248. The certified copies of the aforesaid documents were received by the plaintiff after the issues were framed in suit. He produced documents on the record of the suit with list Ex. 258 on 6. 10. 1989. The petitioner had also presented the applications Ex. 247 and 248. These applications were presented by the petitioner on 15. 10. 1989. The application Ex. 258 was came to be rejected by Trial Court for default on 22. 12. 1981. The applications Ex. 247 and 248 were also dismissed on the same date for default. Immediately after passing of the order of the dismissal of the application for default, the counsel for the petitioner has put appearance in the Court and moved an application for the recalling of that order, which was taken up for hearing on 7. 2. 1990 and it was came to be rejected on that date. This order is not challenged by the defendant No. 2-petitioner in this civil revision application. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court is absolutely perverse in it approach. The applications were interlocutory applications and even if those are dismissed for non-prosecution for the absence of the counsel for the party and when the request has been made for restoration thereof, the Court should not have taken the matter so strictly and to that extent where the prayer for restoration has been rejected. It is next contended that the Court has acted very harshly in the matter. On the same day the application was made for restoration of applications which have been rejected on a technical ground. Lastly it is contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that as these interlocutory applications were dismissed for default, the fresh application is maintainable and restoration of these applications which has been dismissed for default has to be ordered. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No. 1 has supported the order of the Court below. ( 5 ) PRIMA facie I find that the learned Trial Court has proceeded in the matter very harsh and it has taken a very conservative and technical approach. It is a matter where the court may not have taken that much of strict view and more so when on the same day the application has been filed for the restoration of the applications. It is a matter where the court may not have taken that much of strict view and more so when on the same day the application has been filed for the restoration of the applications. The applications are only for interlocutory order and same were dismissed for default. It is always open to the party concerned to file a fresh application and there may not be any difficulty for the Court to restore the application dismissed for non-prosecution. However the learned Trial Court instead of appreciating this contention and taking it to be in a correct perspective has felt contented to observe that simply because fresh application could be said to be maintainable, no ground for accepting the application for restoration of those applications dismissed for non- prosecution. ( 6 ) I do not consider it to be necessary to go on and decide the question that in the proceedings at different stages the principles of res judicata is applicable or not and similarly whether the provisions of the Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable or not in this case. But one thing is very clear that those are interlocutory applications filed by the defendant petitioner. Otherwise also where an interlocutory application is dismissed for non-prosecution it is difficult to say that it is a case where the matter is heard and finally decided, so truly Speaking to such order the provisions of res judicata may not apply. So far as to provision of Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure is concerned it may not be applied to interlocutory applications. However, one thing is clear that this civil revision application does not seems to be a proper advise and more so in view of the observations made by the learned Trial Court in Para-4 of the impugned order. It is not the decision of the learned Trial Court that where the interlocutory applications have been dismissed for non-prosecution, the fresh application for the same relief are barred by the principles of res judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Not only this revision application is filed but the petitioner is able to persuade this Court not only to admit same but the proceedings of the civil suit have also been stayed and it remained stayed for all these years. Not only this revision application is filed but the petitioner is able to persuade this Court not only to admit same but the proceedings of the civil suit have also been stayed and it remained stayed for all these years. So the suit of the plaintiff is remained under stay for more than about 8 years. Be that as it may. This revision application deserves no acceptance and accordingly it is dismissed. However, it is open to the defendant No. 2-petitioner to file a fresh application on the subject matter on which his previous 3 interlocutory applications filed and which have been dismissed for non-prosecution. And in case such applications are being filed by him it is expected of the City Civil Court to decide the same on merits in accordance with the law. In case the Trial Court decides those applications against the defendant No. 2 petitioner on the ground that it is barred by res judicata or under Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, the liberty is granted to the petitioner of the revival of this civil revision application. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. No orders as to costs. .