ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this interlocutory application the election petitioner has prayed for grant of permission to produce Shri Lalaram Ahirwar, Shri Tulasiya Dheemar, Shri Ganesh Chourasiya, Shri Pannalal Pradhan and Shri Amitabh Jain as additional witnesses before this Court. 2. It is pertinent to state here, it has been mentioned in the petition that on behalf of the election petitioner before filing of this application another application had been filed for adducing additional evidence, but the said application did not meet with success and met the fate of dismissal on the ground that nothing was stated in the application on what issues examination of the said witnesses was warranted. It is averred in the petition that in the present election petition no witnesses have been examined but hearing of this petition continued along with Election Petition No. 45/1999 and the evidence recorded therein was to be read in this case. It is urged that as an actual fact on behalf of this election petitioner no questions were asked to the witnesses but the counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the evidence recorded in the Election Petition No. 45/1999 to be sufficient in the present case. It is contended that in this election petition there was an allegation that his nominations papers were exchanged for which no questions were put to the Returning Officer. In this factual backdrop the aforesaid witnesses have been sought to be examined by the petitioner. 3. It is urged in the petition that Shri Lalaram Ahirwar is the counsel who had filled up the nomination forms of the petitioner; Shri Tusliya Dheemar and Shri Ganesh Chourasiya are the proposers of the election petitioner and their evidence is essential as that they would be in a position to depose that signatures of the proposers were on the nomination forms; Shri Pannalal Pradhan is the President of Bundelkhand Backward Classes who was also another proposer in the nomination forms of the petitioner; and Shri Amitabh Jain is required to be called as the nomination forms were presented before him which were changed and on that ground the nomination forms were rejected. On the basis of the aforesaid averments prayer has been made to call these persons as witnesses. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid averments prayer has been made to call these persons as witnesses. 4. A reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1, the returned candidate contending, inter alia, that the application filed by the petitioner is frivolous and is intended to drag the case for political gains. It is putforth that similar types of petitions had been rejected on many an occasion and the petitioner is bent upon not to get the matter finally heard. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had closed his case long back and there is no provision in law to tender additional witnesses after the entire case is closed and fixed for final hearing. It is also setforth that the petitioner is making an endeavour to fill-up the lacunae in his case which is impermissible in law. According to the respondent the case was linked with the case of Akhand Pratap Singh who is the election petitioner in the Election Petition No. 45/1999 and the counsel being one had accepted that evidence would be recorded in one case and be made applicable to another case. It is urged that Shri Amitabh Jain, the Returning Officer had been vigorously cross-examined by both the election petitioners. Assertions made in Paragraph 3 of the pleadings are totally denied. It is putforth that there is total lack of pleading and the petition lacks in material facts and particulars with regard to the role ascribed to the proposed witnesses. Attempt to delay the proceeding at the behest of the petitioner has been seriously commented upon. 5. I have heard Mr. R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Yadav that the witnesses are essential in this case to put the controversy to rest and on the earlier occasion this Court had rejected an application as no specific grounds were urged and when presently precise averments have been putforth the application should be allowed. 7. Mr. Tankha, learned counsel for the respondent, sounding a contra note, has submitted that a maladroit attempt is made to procrastinate the proceeding and such an attempt has to be throttled and thwarted so that an election trial is not carried on ad infinitum at the instance of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Tankha, learned counsel for the respondent, sounding a contra note, has submitted that a maladroit attempt is made to procrastinate the proceeding and such an attempt has to be throttled and thwarted so that an election trial is not carried on ad infinitum at the instance of the petitioner. It is canvassed by him not only the pleading is completely silent on the grounds putforth in the petition but they do not justify or warrant for calling of the said witnesses. 8. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, one is compelled to sit in a time-machine. In this proceeding issues were framed by order dated 23-11-2000. On 15-12-2000 Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, prayed that the case be adjourned to 18-1-2001, on which day the petitioner would bring his witnesses. The matter stood adjourned and eventually on 22-3-2001 this Court passed the following order: It is very fairly agreed to by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Dy. A.G. that the evidence recorded in Election Petition No. 45/99 shall be read in the present case, unless the petitioner wants to adduce evidence of some other witnesses. 9. The matter was linked up with the Election Petition No. 45/1999. An application was filed forming the subject-matter of I.A. No. 27/2001 wherein the learned Senior Counsel prayed to get himself disengaged as he was not in a position to argue the matter. It is relevant to state here that by that time in the other case evidence was closed and the matter was set out for hearing in both the cases. It is pertinent to state here that thereafter a lot of water flowed in the river Narmada inasmuch as in the Election Petition No. 45/99 the petitioner therein filed various petitions to summon series of witnesses, to implead Shri Digvijay Singh, the Chief Minister of the State of M.P. and Shri Amitabh Jain, the Returning Officer. The said petitions were rejected by this Court and Special Leave Petition was carried to the Apex Court which faced with dismissal. Thereafter, both the matters were fixed for hearing. At that juncture, many interlocutory applications were filed. The said petitions were rejected by this Court and Special Leave Petition was carried to the Apex Court which faced with dismissal. Thereafter, both the matters were fixed for hearing. At that juncture, many interlocutory applications were filed. I.A. No. 22/2002 was filed to allow the petitioner to produce the witnesses in support of his case along with additional evidence and further to allow the petitioner to re-examine the respondent and the returning officer. Another I.A. No. 30/2002 was filed to allow certain witnesses to be examined and cross-examined and to call for certain documents from the custody of the Returning Officer. This Court on 28-10-2002 while dealing with the I.A. No. 22/2002 referred to the averments and eventually in paragraphs 3 to 5 held as under : 3. Before I proceed to deal with this application it is appropriate to deal with the earlier application which formed the subject-matter of I.A. No. 5/2002. In the affidavit accompanied to the said application it was mentioned that Akhand Pratap Singh who had filed the election petition No. 45/99 had filed Interlocutory Application Nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 2001 which were dismissed by this Court and he had approached the Apex Court for obtaining order of stay. Narrating the said facts it is putforth that pendency of this election petition would cause unnecessary delay and, therefore, hearing should take place. As far as present application is concerned the prayer, in essence, is to produce his witnesses on the ground that deponent has not been given any opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. The plea of prejudice has been putforth. In this context, it is absolutely appropriate to refer to various orders passed by this Court on earlier occasion. On 23-11-2000 this Court framed the following issues : 1) Is the respondents election void on the grounds contained in section 100(1)(b)(c)(d)(ii) and (iv) of the Representation of People's Act? 2) (a) Was the nomination submitted by Surendra Pratap Singh, Kumar Ji Nandram, Swami Sahu improperly accepted? (b) If so, has the result of election insofar as it concerned the respondent been materially affected? (c) Is the respondents void on the ground contained in section 100(1)(d)(i)? 4. On 8-12-2000 the counsel for the petitioner had stated that he had already filed the documents and list of witnesses. (b) If so, has the result of election insofar as it concerned the respondent been materially affected? (c) Is the respondents void on the ground contained in section 100(1)(d)(i)? 4. On 8-12-2000 the counsel for the petitioner had stated that he had already filed the documents and list of witnesses. Matter was adjourned on number of occasions at the behest for the learned counsel for the parties. On 22-3-2001 this Court had passed the following order: It is very fairly agreed to by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Dy. A.G. that the evidence recorded in Election Petition No. 45/99 shall be read in the present case, unless the petitioner wants to adduce evidence of some other witnesses. 5. On 23-3-2001 the petitioner was personally present. The matter was adjourned on many an occasion as it was tagged with Election Petition No. 15/99 and the counsel was the same. Interlocutory Application No. 27/2001 was filed by the senior counsel Mr. R.N. Singh being assisted by Mr. Arpan Pawar that he may be permitted to withdraw from the case. Mr. B. Agrawal was engaged to argue the matter. As Mr. Agrawal, was not in a position to address this Court due to bereavement in his family, the matter was adjourned on some occasions. When the matter was posted for final argument this petition came to be filed. On a scrutiny of the petition it is crystal clear that nothing has been stated in the petition except stating that he had not been given any opportunity to produce witnesses in support of his case and if the case is finally heard on the basis of evidence brought on record in Election Petition No. 45/99 the petitioner would suffer immense prejudice. It is worthwhile to note here that, as has been indicated earlier, that on 22-3-2001 the learned counsel for the parties had fairly agreed that the evidence in the Election Petition No. 45/99 shall be read in the present case unless the petitioner wants to adduce some other evidence. A concession was given by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel of this Bar. I may hasten to add that the shutter was not totally closed for the petitioner. A concession was given by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel of this Bar. I may hasten to add that the shutter was not totally closed for the petitioner. His entitlement to adduce evidence of some other witnesses was not wholly or totally foreclosed but the present petition has been styled as if the petitioner wants a de novo trial. In my considered opinion, in view of the earlier orders and the proceedings recorded the same is not permissible. If the petitioner intends to adduce any other evidence by bringing any witnesses who had not been cited earlier, his prayer would be considered in proper perspective. As the petition is silent in that regard, the same cannot be entertained in the manner it has been presented. Hence, while rejecting the present application leave/liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application making out a case in terms of earlier order passed by this Court. 10. After passing of the aforesaid order I.A. No. 30/2002 was filed wherein this Court on 10-1-2003 referred to the earlier order and came to hold as under: 2. Thereafter the present petition has been filed. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this application it has been put forth as under: 3. That, the applicant submits here that by examining the following witnesses and the documents the applicant wants to establish that his nomination form was substituted and as a result of the contrivance of electoral staff to exclude the applicant from election contest so that scheduled caste votes may be diverted in favour of respondent. 4. That therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the following witnesses to be examined and cross-examined on behalf of the applicant. In the following witnesses ten witnesses are the proposals of petitioner nominations proposal also included: 1. Shri Lalaram Ahirwar, Advocate, resident of village - Sayawari, Police Station - Mauranipur, District-Jhansi. 2. Shri Sukhandan, Village Gijarkirak (Bendari) Police Station, Palera, District, Tikamgarh. 3. Shri Tulsiya Dheemar, Village Gijarkirak (Bendari) Police Station, Palera, District, Tikamgarh. 4. Shri Kishori Rajpoot, Village-Bhagatpura, Khirak, Police Station, Palera, Dist. Tikamgarh. 5. Shri Ghanshyam Rajput, Village-Bhagatpra, Khirak, Police Station, Palera, Dist. Tikamgarh. 6. Shri Suke Kushwaha, Village-Jewar, Police Station, Teharka, Dist. Tikamgarh. 7. Shri Amrit Yadav, Village-Bidari, Police Station, Mohangarh, Dist. Tikamgarh. 8. Shri Kunjlal Panch, Village-Mudara, Police Station, Mohangarh, Dist. 4. Shri Kishori Rajpoot, Village-Bhagatpura, Khirak, Police Station, Palera, Dist. Tikamgarh. 5. Shri Ghanshyam Rajput, Village-Bhagatpra, Khirak, Police Station, Palera, Dist. Tikamgarh. 6. Shri Suke Kushwaha, Village-Jewar, Police Station, Teharka, Dist. Tikamgarh. 7. Shri Amrit Yadav, Village-Bidari, Police Station, Mohangarh, Dist. Tikamgarh. 8. Shri Kunjlal Panch, Village-Mudara, Police Station, Mohangarh, Dist. Tikamgarh. 9. Shri Mohan Paul, r/o Jataraa, Police Station, Jatara, Dist. Tikamgarh. 10. Shri Santosh Sahu, r/o Village, Jewar, Police Station, Taharaka, Dist. Tikamgarh. 11. Shri Tularam Kori, r/o Village, Jewar, Police Station, Taharaka, Dist. Tikamgarh. 12. Shri Ganesh Chourasiya, village Gore, Police Station, Taharaka, District, Tikamgarh. 13. Shri Pannalal Pradhan, Chairman, Bundelkhand Backward Samaj, r/o Siyawani, Police Station, Mauranipur, Dist. Jhansi. 14. Returning Officer of Khajuraho Parliament Constituency, Khajuraho, Lok Sabha Election in 1999 with the following documents Lok Sabha Election : (i) Voterlist for the year 1999 Assembly Constituency 46 Tikamgarh Bhag Sankha 117 Lok Sabha No. 6, Khajuraho, Village Sunderpur. (ii) Nomination fees receipt-book dated 28-8-1999 in which petitioner deposited his nomination fees and security of Rs. 5000/-. (iii) Original receipt deposit by Anandilal Ahirwar to the Returning Officer for refund of Security amount of Rs. 5000/- deposited with the nominations Form to the Returning Officer. (iv) Affidavit submitted by petitioner to the Returning Officer, dated 28-8-1999 with the nomination form original. (v) Nomination form Shri Surendra Pratap Singh Samajbandi Candidate dated 27-8-1999 and two nominations Form dated 2-8-1999. (vi) Nomination Form submitted by Shri Khusum Independent candidate, dated 28-8-1999. (vii) Candidates notification dated 24-8-1999 after filing nomination paper. (viii) Final Result-sheet of Khajuraho Constituency Election, dated 7-10-1999. (ix) Application of petitioner to the Returning Officer, dated 30-8-1999. (x) Final Result sheet dated 7-10-1999. 5. That, further the then Returning Officer Shri Abhijit Jain may be called for examination, cross-examination and verification of the above documents with the then writer of quoted in the serial number on nomination paper and quoted No. 33 on the petitioner nomination paper. 3. A reply has been filed contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has closed his evidence and hence, at this juncture such a prayer is not permissible. It is set forth in the objection that the election petition is silent about the names of the proposers of the election petitioner and hence, in absence of the pleadings in that regard to examine the witnesses is unwarrantable. 4. It is set forth in the objection that the election petition is silent about the names of the proposers of the election petitioner and hence, in absence of the pleadings in that regard to examine the witnesses is unwarrantable. 4. As regards re-examining of the Returning Officer is concerned, it is putforth that no reasons have been ascribed. It is also stated that the orders passed on 3-10-2001 and 30-1-2002 in Election Petition No. 45/1999 clearly go to show that there is no justification for reexamination of the Returning Officer. 5. To appreciate the factual scenario, I have carefully perused the pleadings of the election petition. It is silent with regard to names of proposers. On 3-10-2001 in Election Petition No. 45/99 in paragraph 2 of the order this Court observed as under: 2. It has been putforth in the petition that the allegations have been made against Shri Digvijay Singh in paragraphs D and E of the grounds of the election petition and allegations have also been made against Shri Amitabh Jain. It is averred in the petition, as per section 99 of the Representation of People Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the said persons should be impleaded as respondents against whom corrupt practices have been alleged. It is relevant to state here that Amitabh Jain was the Returning Officer. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said order this Court expressed the view as under: 11. As far as allegations against Shri Amitabh Jain are concerned, it pertains to his role to get nomination papers substituted and influenced Anandilal Ahirwar at one point of time not to contest the election. It is apposite to state here that Shri Amitabh Jain has been examined as a witness and also been cross-examined at length. The main crux of the allegation is rejection of the nomination papers of Anandilal Ahirwar and Anil Kumar and the role played by the Returning Officer. 12. The heard of the matter is whether because of these allegations and the nature of evidence brought on record the Court is bound to issue notice to Shri Digvijay Singh and Shri Amitabh Jain. The Court cannot act mechanically because a petition has been filed. In fact, that is not what has been enjoined under section 99 of the Act. The provision enshrined therein has a sacrosanct purpose. The Court cannot act mechanically because a petition has been filed. In fact, that is not what has been enjoined under section 99 of the Act. The provision enshrined therein has a sacrosanct purpose. It envisages that there cannot be two separate orders, one under section 98 and another under section 99 of the Act as that would lead to an absurd situation. If the Court records a finding with regard to proof of any corrupt practice the said persons are to be given notice requiring them to show cause why should they be not named and proceeded accordingly. This Court has an obligation to be satisfied that the allegations and the evidence brought on record warrant such a finding to be recorded. 6. Thereafter this Court referred to number of decisions and eventually in paragraphs 17 and 18 held as under: 17. From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court it is luminously clear that the Court has to issue notice under section 99 of the Act before recording a categorical and positive finding. Their Lordships have given emphasis on the aspect that there must be 'sufficient material' on record to proceed against persons by issuing notice under section 99 of the Act. Because certain allegations have been made in the petition that will not compel the Court to issue notice under section 99 of the Act. There must be sufficient material on record. To elaborate, the election petitioner cannot make a prayer to issue notice under section 99 of the Act because there are some allegations in the petition which are not substantiated by proper and cogent evidence. The keywords used by the Apex Court are "sufficient material to hold a person guilty of a corrupt practice. Quite apart from the above, there must be prima facie, satisfaction on the part of the Court otherwise, a person would be named and required to answer a charge which is quasi-criminal in nature without any basis or foundation. 18. The present case has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid enunciation of law. I have already quoted the allegations made in the election petition against Shri Digvijay Singh and Shri Amitabh Jain. 18. The present case has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid enunciation of law. I have already quoted the allegations made in the election petition against Shri Digvijay Singh and Shri Amitabh Jain. The evidence which has been adduced by the petitioner to substantiate the aforesaid allegations only indicate that Shri Digvijay Singh had removed the election petitioner from his Cabinet and spoke against him in a public meeting and utilised the State machinery against him. Except this evidence which is absolutely cryptic and sketchy there is nothing on record to show that Shri Digvijay Singh was involved in any corrupt practice. On a perusal of the pleadings in proper perspective and scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case which demonstrates sufficient material on record warranting issuance of notice to Shri Digvijay Singh and Shri Amitabh Jain taking recourse to section 99 of the Act. 7. Thereafter an application was preferred under sections 151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, forming the subject-matter of I. A. Nos. 33/2001, 34/2001 and 35/2001. That was decided on 30-1-2002. While deciding the said applications in paragraphs 5 and 6 this Court held as under: I.A. No. 33/2001 5. On a perusal of the aforesaid decisions and the law laid down therein, I fail to fathom how the principles stated therein are of any assistance to the petitioner. In the case at hand, this Court had granted ample opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and the petitioner had engaged a Senior Counsel who had participated throughout the proceeding and the documents which were tendered in evidence as per the Evidence Act, and were marked as Exhibits. Apart from the documents which were tendered in evidence, no other document was tendered. At this stage to take a plea that one of the parties had complied with the provision of the Civil Procedure Code is totally unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner made enormous efforts to highlight that there has been specific procedural discrepancies but on queries being made he could not point out a single instance except stating that certain documents were not marked as Exhibits and the respondent No. 1 should have been asked to admit the said documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner made enormous efforts to highlight that there has been specific procedural discrepancies but on queries being made he could not point out a single instance except stating that certain documents were not marked as Exhibits and the respondent No. 1 should have been asked to admit the said documents. It is apposite to state here that at no point of time any application was filed requiring the respondents to admit any document. Parties entered into contest being assisted by their counsel and evidence was recorded. There was no occasion requiring the respondent to accept or admit any document. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived. 6. In view of my preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the application filed by the petitioner is devoid of substance and deserves to be rejected. I.A. No. 35/2001 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made against Shri Digvijay Singh and Shri Amitabh Jain have not been taken into consideration. In para No. 11 this Court has taken note of the allegations made against Amitabh Jain. The only allegation against Shri Amitabh Jain was that he had at one point of time influenced Anandilal Ahirwar not to contest the election. This Court has taken note of the fact that Amitabh Jain was examined as a witness and cross-examined at length. Keeping the aforesaid aspect and the allegations made against Shri Digvijay Singh in view, this Court came to hold that it was not a fit case which demonstrated sufficient materials on record warranting issuance of notice to Shri Digvijay Singh and Amitabh Jain by taking recourse to section 99 of the Act. It is further apposite to state here that this Court had referred to the allegations made against Shri Digvijay Singh and Amitabh Jain and the material have also been reflected in the order. This Court has taken note of the fact that no prima facie case was made out to the satisfaction of the Court so as to name the persons who are required to answer the charge which is quasi criminal in nature. 6. This Court has taken note of the fact that no prima facie case was made out to the satisfaction of the Court so as to name the persons who are required to answer the charge which is quasi criminal in nature. 6. It is not a case that the order is totally silent with regard to the allegations made against Amitabh Jain, In view of the aforesaid premises, I do not find any justification for review of the order passed in I.A. No. 26/2001, dated 3-10-2001 and accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 8. On a perusal of the aforesaid spectrums, it is quite clear that this Court had negatived the recall of the returning officer in the connected case. The aforesaid order has been unsuccessfully assailed before the Apex Court, as submitted by Mr. P.D. Gupta. 9. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion, the petition filed by the petitioner to call for the witnesses and records, is without any substance and, in fact, has been filed with the purpose to delay the proceedings. Quite apart from the above, nothing has been stated in the petition why the petitioner wants to call for some other witnesses. As it appears the petitioner has harboured a feeling, to borrow the language of Chief Justice Burger 'A laboratory where children come to play'. It is manifest that he wants to call witnesses whose role have not been put forth in the election petition and cited them as witnesses, as if it is a mock trial and he is the sole protagonist. Procrastination of election petition is not appreciated. This Court hopes and trust that the petitioner shall restrain from filing petition after petition for no apparent reason. Resultantly, the IA stands dismissed. Let the matter be listed on 31-1-2003 for final hearing. 11. Thereafter the present application has been filed. In this petition, as has been indicated, the petitioner seeks to examine Lalaram Ahirwar, Tulsiya Dheemar, Ganesh Chourasiya, Pannalal Pradhan and Amitabh Jain. All these five persons were named in the earlier list which finds mention in the earlier order. This Court in a detailed order has rejected the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the earlier occasion in the petition filed by the petitioner reasons were not given and in the present petition reasons have been ascribed. All these five persons were named in the earlier list which finds mention in the earlier order. This Court in a detailed order has rejected the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the earlier occasion in the petition filed by the petitioner reasons were not given and in the present petition reasons have been ascribed. This Court on the earlier occasion has discussed in detail why the returning officer need not be recalled in this case. The Apex Court had also refused to interfere in the order passed by this Court. True it is, non-interference was in another case but both the cases were taken up together and the learned Senior Counsel for the parties had accepted the same. There was vigorous and searching examination. In fact, for that reason the learned Senior Counsel had eventually submitted that he was not in a position to argue the matter. Be that as it may, in para 9 this Court has recorded two fold reasons i.e. that there was no substance to call for the witnesses and further nothing had been stated in the petition as to why the petitioner wanted to call for other witnesses. Though I have held so earlier, to satisfy myself (an exercise, a repeated one), I have perused the averments made in the election petition. In paragraphs 1 to 5 it has been stated that the petitioner submitted his nomination papers and taken precaution to see that the same were filed without any defect. It has been stated in the petition that the nomination papers which were placed before the Returning Officer, were not the same which were submitted by him on 28-11-1999. Certain allegations have been made against the Returning Officer but nothing has been stated who were his proposers. Be that as it may, on the earlier petition this Court had not granted leave to the petitioner to file such a petition. The petition was rejected in entirety. 12. Certain allegations have been made against the Returning Officer but nothing has been stated who were his proposers. Be that as it may, on the earlier petition this Court had not granted leave to the petitioner to file such a petition. The petition was rejected in entirety. 12. Thus, the earlier order, in my considered view, would operate as res judicata in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of Satyadhane Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajan Debi and another, AIR 1960 SC 941 wherein their Lordships have held as under: The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. 13. I have referred to the aforesaid aspect only to show that the petitioner has filed this petition on the pretext that no reasons were mentioned on the earlier petition or the other. That apart, I have also dealt with the merit of the application which is totally silent with regard to role of any proposer. In the absence of any particulars the petition was earlier rejected and deserves to be rejected how. The petitioner very well knew that this Court by a detailed and reasoned order had rejected the prayer for recall of the Returning Officer, Shri Amitabh Jain along with records. Despite that his name has been included in the present petition. Earlier also names of the four persons found mention. This Court while recording the finding, stated that no reasons had been ascribed. In the present petition reasons have been given indicating the counsel had submitted the nomination papers which contained the names of the three proposers. On a detailed scrutiny of the election petition, it is not at all perceivable that any averment has been made with regard to the counsel or the three proposers. Even on a x-ray such a thing is neither decipherable nor discernible. 14. This Court on the earlier occasion had expressed that the petitioner should restrain from filing petition after petition for no apparent reason. Even on a x-ray such a thing is neither decipherable nor discernible. 14. This Court on the earlier occasion had expressed that the petitioner should restrain from filing petition after petition for no apparent reason. From the aforesaid it is absolutely evincible that the petitioner has entombed the previous order and kept it in a carcass and made an ingenious attempt to bring it alive like a phoenix with total imprudence and adopting an incorrigible proclivity and indefatigable propensity. He has remained totally oblivious and unheeding to the axiomatic maxim "EX NIHILO, NIHIL FIT" and paved the path of adamantine obstreperous obstinacy as if in a state of unqualified obsession to procrastinate the proceeding. Not for nothing it has been said that obstinacy is never so stiff when it is in a wrong belief. As is manifest, the election petitioner is bent upon building a castle in Spain. True it is, harbouring a sense of optimism is a prerequisite to fight adversities of life but simultaneously one should be aware of the well known caution that sometimes optimism flourishes the most in a defective prism. Optimism has its own limitations and acceptance of it is a good facet of wisdom. It is absolutely patent that the petitioner is bent upon to fight against the precedential discipline and the respectable concept of legal ageism. In fact, he has indulged in legal chicanery. 15. Resultantly, the application stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND ONLY). 16. Let the matter be listed for final argument on 21-3-2003 along with the Election Petition No. 45/1999.