ORDER : The defendant in O.S.No.7988/2012 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore has filed three successive applications under Order VIII Rule 1 A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [For Short, CPC], and these applications are filed seeking permission to produce the same set of documents, but each of these three applications have ended differently; the first of the application is rejected on a Memo filed by the first defendant, the second of the application is rejected on the ground that the defendant with the said application had not filed the documents that it wanted to produce and third of the application is allowed by the impugned order dated 26.02. 2018. The plaintiff has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 26.02.2018. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court ought not to have allowed the third successive and similar application as rejection of the similar earlier applications operated as res judicata, and he also argued that the court ought to have seen that the defendant’s conduct in filing successive applications, despite rejection of the earlier similar applications, does not bear any deference to process of judicial proceedings and that on this score alone the third application ought to have been rejected. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows: “IA No. 9 filed by the applicant/defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/and the directing the defendant to complete his further evidence on the next date of hearing without fail.” 3. The learned judge in allowing the application, while considering the contentions urged by the Plaintiff, the petitioner before this court, has reasoned that the second application by the defendant was rejected on the technical ground that the defendant had not filed the documents with such application; and the learned judge has also qualified the allowing of the application with the condition that defendant ought to lead further evidence without fail on the next date of hearing. 4. The learned judge in exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the application to ensure that the proceedings before the court, as it should always be, is equitable and comprehensive, and for the reason that the earlier application was rejected on technical ground. 4. The learned judge in exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the application to ensure that the proceedings before the court, as it should always be, is equitable and comprehensive, and for the reason that the earlier application was rejected on technical ground. Therefore, this court is rather not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order; and insofar as the Learned Counsel’s contention that the successive applications for the same relief, being barred by res judicata, tantamount to abuse of the due judicial process, the same is considered in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohinder Singh [AIR 1964 Sc Page 993] which read as follows: “It is needless to point out that interlocutory orders are of various kinds; some like orders of stay, injunction or receiver are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the court usually take. They do not, in that sense, decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. Such orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new situations which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does not apply to the findings on which these orders are based, though if applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has once been disposed of the court would be justified in rejecting the same as an abuse of the process, of court …….” “……..The principle that repeated applications based on the same facts and seeking the same relief’s might be disallowed by the court does not however necessarily rest on the principle of res judicata. Thus, if an application for the adjournment of a suit is rejected, a subsequent application for the same purpose even if based on the same facts, is not barred on the application 'of any rule of res judicata, but would be rejected for the same grounds on which the original application was refused. Thus, if an application for the adjournment of a suit is rejected, a subsequent application for the same purpose even if based on the same facts, is not barred on the application 'of any rule of res judicata, but would be rejected for the same grounds on which the original application was refused. The principle underlying the distinction between the rule of res judicata and a rejection on the ground that no new facts have been adduced to justify a different order is vital. If the principle of res judicata is applicable to the decision on a particular issue of fact, even if fresh facts were placed before the Court, the bar would continue to operate and preclude a fresh investigation of the issue, whereas in the other case, on proof of fresh facts, the court would be competent, nay,, would be bound to take those into account and make an order conformably to the facts freshly brought before the court……..” 5. Therefore, it cannot be said that a successive interim applications in all situations is barred by res judicata, and it must be said that every application must considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. However, if recourse is had to filing successive similar applications without any justification, the same will be impermissible, and such filing must be eschewed. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of.