Judgment :- The third party in O.S.No.106 of 2008 is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 16-04-2008, dismissing the application filed by him under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. .2. O.S.No.106 of 2008 has been filed by the first respondents/plaintiff against the revision petitioner/ third party and the second respondent herein for a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant in the suit or its members from interfering with the unloading of Agricultural Products by the members of the plaintiff brought to the Vellakoil Regulated Market Committee. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is a party in the suit i.e. the first defendant. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.444 of 2008 under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 for an order of interim injunction. In I.A.No.444 of 2008, the revision petitioner/first defendant was not made as a party and the second defendant alone was shown as a party and the injunction was also asked against them only. On coming to know about this, the first defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.552 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, to implead him as the second respondent in I.A.No.444 of 2008. This was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter wherein it was stated that a similar application was already filed without success and this is a third impleading petition filed by the revision petitioner at the instance of the second defenant and therefore, it is barred by principles of res judicata. 3. The trial Court by order dated 16-04-2008 dismissed I.A.No.552 of 2008 on the ground that already an application was filed by the same petitioner in I.A.No.476 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on merits and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the third party/first defendant in the suit has filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, on 28-05-2008 ordered notice of motion and granted interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2008. 5. The first respondent/plaintiff entered appearance and filed M.P.No.2 of 2008 to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. The second respondent also entered appearance through their counsel. 6. Heard Thiru.Raja Kalifullah, the learned Government Pleader for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. The first respondent/plaintiff entered appearance and filed M.P.No.2 of 2008 to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. The second respondent also entered appearance through their counsel. 6. Heard Thiru.Raja Kalifullah, the learned Government Pleader for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. I have perused the entire materials available on record including the judgments relied on by both the parties. .7. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable as even according to the plaintiff, it was admitted that the plaintiff is an un-registered Society. Therefore, such a Society cannot maintain the present suit and he relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1989 WLR 84(Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras rep.by D.Manikavelu, General Secretary -vs-The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Madras and two others), wherein the Full Bench decision of this Court held that an un-registered Association cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that when the revision petitioner was made as a party in the suit, as the first defendant, he should have been made a party in the injunction application also. The plaintiff, with ulterior motive did not add the revision petitioner as a party in the injunction application filed in I.A.No.444 of 2008 as if impleaded, the revision petitioner would place all the relevant facts and records which will definitely go to show that there is no merits in the injunction application filed by the plaintiff. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that when the earlier application filed for impleading, by the very same petitioner, was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was not challenged at all, it will operate as a res judicata for the present impleading petition. Relying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 606(Chhabil Das -vs-Pappu), he submitted that the principle of res judicata also applied in different stages of the same proceedings. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that as the plaintiff in a suit is dominus litis and if he opposes impleadments and take calculated risks, Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and implead a person as a party. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that as the plaintiff in a suit is dominus litis and if he opposes impleadments and take calculated risks, Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and implead a person as a party. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 343 (Sunil Gupta -vs- Kiran Girhotra and others). 9. Before concluding, the learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that what was challenged before this Court was the order passed by the trial Court on 16-04-2008 in I.A.No.552 of 2008. The trial Court, on 24-04-2008 allowed the injunction application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for interim injunction. Without appealing against the order of interim injunction with a stay petition before the appropriate Court, the revision petitioner filed the above civil revision petition and obtained stay of the order passed in I.A.No.444 of 2008, which is an abuse of process of law. 10. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 11. What is challanged before this Court is the order of the trial Court passed on 16-04-2008 by which, the impleading application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.552 of 2008 was dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that an earlier application was filed by the very same revision petitioner in I.A.No.476 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on merits after hearing both the parties. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the present petition is barred by res judicata. If that being so, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the impleading application filed in I.A.No.552 of 2008. It was also not established before me how the earlier petition filed in I.A.No.476 of 2008 is not a bar to the present petition filed in I.A.No.552 of 2008. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the above civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. No cost. 12. At the same time, I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff that the revision petitioner is guilty of obtaining a stay of the operation of the order passed in I.A.No.444 of 2008, which is not at all under challenge before this Court. No cost. 12. At the same time, I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff that the revision petitioner is guilty of obtaining a stay of the operation of the order passed in I.A.No.444 of 2008, which is not at all under challenge before this Court. Admittedly I.A.No.444 of 2008 was filed by the first respondnet/plaintiff for an order of interim injunction and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 24-04-2008. This order dated 24-04-2008 made in I.A.No.444 of 2008 was not challenged before this Court and if that being so, it is not proper on the part of the revision petitioner to ask for a stay of that order which is appealable in nature. In fact, a perusal of the stay petition filed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 will reveal that initially the petitioner wanted the stay order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.552 of 2008. But, later on, the same was struck off by ink and in its place I.A.No.444 of 2008 was put in ink in the petition filed in M.P.No.1 of 2008. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, if at all the revision petitioner wants to stay the order dated 24-04-2008, made in I.A.No.444 of 2008, they should have filed an appeal against that order when that order is not under challenge at all, the revision petitioner cannot ask for a stay of that order. It is settled law that what a person cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly also. 13. Therefore, I have no hesitation in imposing some cost on the revision petitioner for the above said conduct. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, High Court Buildings, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. 13. Therefore, I have no hesitation in imposing some cost on the revision petitioner for the above said conduct. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, High Court Buildings, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. However, considering the fact and that the question of maintainability of the suit itself is raised by the learned Government Pleader and the plaintiff does not want the first defendant in the suit to be impleaded in the injunction petition, I direct the trial Court to show utmost urgency to O.S.No.106 of 2008 and dispose off the suit itself on merits and in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If necessary, the trial may be conducted on a day to-day basis after giving sufficient opportunity to both the sides. 15. In the result, the Civil Rivision Petitiion No.1821 of 2008 is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only). M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2008 is allowed.