JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioners arraigned as opposite parties Nos. 1 and 4 in complaint No. 169/2003 filed by the respondent herein before the I Addl. District Consumers Dispute Redressel Forum, Bangalore Urban District (for short ‘District Forum), aggrieved by the order dated 24-9-2004 Annexure-’F’ directing the petitioners to pay Rs75,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of investment and Rs.25,000/- towards damages on account of deficiency in service, filed Appeal No. 1722/2005 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ‘State Commission’). Along with the appeal memorandum, was an application to condone the delay of 361 days in preferring the appeal. The State Commission not satisfied with the cause shown, declined to condone the delay and accordingly, rejected the application and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by time by order dated 9-11-2005 Annexure-’H’. Petitioners carried the said order in Revision Petition No. 282/2006 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bangalore, which too was dismissed by order dated 2-2-2006 Annexure-’J’. 2. The respondent-complainant sued execution in Execution Petition No. 21/2005 before the District Forum wherein the 2nd petitioner filed a memo dated 19-10-2005 Annexure-’K’ to drop the proceedings and direct the complainant to pay Rs.2,24,000/- with interest to the petitioners, on the premise that the parties had entered into a private negotiation whereunder the complainant adjusted Rs.75,000/- towards payments due under a car loan advanced by the petitioners and in which the complainant agreed to pay to the petitioners Rs.2,24,000/-. That memo was opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 28-11-2005 Annexure-’L’ of the complainant. The District Forum by order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ rejected the memo. The District Forum observed that it was not possible to infer adjustment of Rs.75,000/- towards purchase of the vehicle since the original receipt dated 22-09-1997 issued by the petitioners for having received Rs. 75,000/- was produced by the complainant. 3. The 2nd petitioner, without questioning the order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ of the District Forum and having allowed the same to become final, filed another memo dated 8-8-2006 Annexure-’N’ for the very same relief to drop the execution proceedings. 75,000/- was produced by the complainant. 3. The 2nd petitioner, without questioning the order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ of the District Forum and having allowed the same to become final, filed another memo dated 8-8-2006 Annexure-’N’ for the very same relief to drop the execution proceedings. The District Forum, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had not called in question the order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ rejecting the memo dated 19-10-2005 Annexure-’K’ coupled with the fact that the contentions advanced in the memo were earlier considered and rejected in the order Annexure-’M’, accordingly by order dated 29-8-2006 Annexure-’O’, rejected the memo. The petitioners carried this order in Appeal No. 2348/2006 before the State Commission which was dismissed by order dated 11-6-2007 Annexure-’P’. While dismissing the appeal, the State Commission directed that Rs.75,000/- in deposit, in the appeal, be made over to the complainant if a memo was filed in that regard and to adjust the said sum towards the amounts payable by the petitioners to the complainant on the execution side. Hence, this petition invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to (a) quash the Execution proceedings in E.P. No.21/2005 and (b)the order dated 11-6-2007 Annexure-’P’ in Appeal No. 2348/2006. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the District Forum and the State Commission fell in error in not noticing a relevant fact that in terms of the statement of installments Annexure-’E’, the parties having negotiated a settlement whereunder petitioners’ liability to pay Rs.75,000/- under the order dated 24-9-2004 Annexure-’F’ of the District Forum in Complaint No. 169/2003 was adjusted and though nothing remained to be paid to the complainant, nevertheless, the complainant bound himself to pay Rs.2,24,000/- to the petitioners. 5. This was the very same contention urged by the petitioners in the memos dated 19-10-2005 Annexure-’K’ and 8-8-2006 Annexure-’N’, by way of objections to the Execution Petition, which were rejected by the orders dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ and dated 29-8-2006 Annexure-’O’ respectively of the District Forum. 6. A perusal of the averments in the memo dated 19-10-2005 Annexure-’K’ discloses that the petitioners sought to have the execution proceedings dropped on the premise that the parties entered into a settlement by which Rs.75,000/- payable by the petitioners was adjusted while complainant agreed to pay Rs.2,24,000/- due under a car loan transaction and not the transaction, subject matter of complaint. This plea, would have been a complete answer to the continuance of the execution proceedings. 7. The order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ rejecting the memo Annexure-’K’ animates consideration of the petitioners’ assertion regarding the settlement, alleged adjustment of Rs.75,000/- and the claim of Rs.2,24,000/- from the complainant towards purchase of the car. The District Forum, on an assessment of the documentary evidence, recorded a factual finding that the petitioners had failed to place relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of adjustment of Rs.75,000/- in the light of the fact that the complainant had produced the original receipt dated 22-09-1997 issued by the petitioners for having received Rs.75,000/- towards allotment of 50 units of oak. The rejection of the petitioners’ objections to the Execution Petition by order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’ of the District Forum and no appeal admittedly having been brought against the said order, it cannot but be said to be binding between the parties. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the point for consideration is, “Whether the petitioners’ memo dated 8-8-2006 Annexure-’N’ for reliefs identical to those sought for in the memo dated 19-10-2005 Annexure-’K’, on the very same pleadings, at a subsequent stage in the same Execution proceedings, is hit by the principles of res judicata?” 9. The observations of the Apex Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Another, 1960 (3) SCR 590 in the circumstances is apposite. Sri Das Gupta J., speaking for the Court expressed thus: “The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter - whether on a question of fact or on a question of law - has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceedings and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher Court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by Courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original Court as well as any higher Court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Interlocutory orders which have the force of a decree must be distinguished from other interlocutory orders, which are a step towards the decision of the dispute between the parties by way of a decree or a final order. That is, in the sense, that they decide the matter in issue and put an end to the litigation. 11. The Supreme Court, in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and Others, AIR 1964 SC 993 , while considering the scope of the principles of res judicata, observed thus; “Similarly, as stated already, though Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly contemplates the existence of two suits and the findings in the first being res judicata in the later suit, it is well established that the principle underlying it is equally applicable to the case of decisions rendered at successive stages of the same suit or proceedings. But where the principle of res judicata is invoked in the case of the different stages of proceedings in the same suit, the nature of the proceedings, the scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision being reached, as well as the specific provisions made on matters touching such decision are some of the material and relevant factors to be considered before the principle is held applicable.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Indisputably, Complaint No. 169/2003 for deficiency in service entitling the complainant to Rs.75,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum and the claim for Rs.25,000/- as damages was not contested by the opposite party, the petitioners herein since they were absent and were unrepresented leading to the order dated 24-9-2004 Annexure-’F’. Petitioner’s Appeal No. 1722/2005 was rejected as barred by time by order dated 9-11-2005 Annexure-’H’ which stood confirmed by order dated 2-2-2006 in Revision Petition No. 282/2006 of the National Consumer Redressel Commission. 13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and applying the same to the facts of this case, in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to execute the order in Complaint No. 169/2003, the petitioners’ objections by way of memo dated 19-10-2005 Annexure-’K’ to drop the Execution proceedings and direct the complainant to pay Rs. 2,24,000/- considered on the merits of the allegations, when rejected by order dated 27-12-2005 Annexure-’M’, being a step towards the decision of the dispute between the parties in the Execution proceedings, in effect is a final order. Admittedly, the petitioners having not questioned the order Annexure-’M’ in an appropriate appeal proceeding, the rejection of the objections to the Execution proceeding, put an end to the controversy in issue which was not capable of being altered or varied by subsequent objections for identical reliefs. Thus, the filing of the subsequent memo dated 8-8-2006 Annexure-’N’ for identical reliefs as sought in the memo Annexure-’K’, on same set of facts but at a subsequent stage in the Execution proceeding, attracts the principles of res judicata, disentitling the petitioners to maintain the said memo and re-agitate the very claim which was rejected by an earlier order of the District Forum. 14. In our opinion, the District Forum was fully justified in rejecting the petitioner’s second memo dated 8-8-2006, filed in succession, at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, by order dated 29-8-2006 Annexure-’O’ which was confirmed by order dated 11-6-2007 Annexure-’P’ of the State Forum dismissing the Appeal No. 2348/2006. 15. The Execution proceedings and the order impugned are not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity occasioning grave injustice to the petitioners calling for interference. The Writ Petition is without merit and is accordingly, rejected.