JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VII, Begusarai in Execution Case No. 03 of 2009 whereby he has rejected the petition dated 05.12.2017 filed by the petitioners under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 99 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for stay of the proceedings of Execution Case No. 03 of 2009 till disposal of Title Suit No. 22 of 2011 pending before the learned Sub-Judge-I, Begusarai for declaration of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 1961 as void, illegal and not binding on the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the ambit and scope of Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC. It has rejected the application filed by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 04.04.2018 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, if the order impugned is allowed to be sustained, the same would cause great prejudice and irreparable loss to the petitioners. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned dated 04.04.2018, I find that prior to the application dated 05.12.2017, the petitioners had filed another application under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 99 and Section 151 of the CPC on 07.10.2017, on the same ground, as raised in the application dated 05.12.2017. The said application was rejected by the trial court. The said order by which the earlier application of the petitioners was rejected has not been challenged before any court. Keeping in mind the rejection of the earlier application, the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioners vide the order impugned. 5. In the opinion of this Court, no illegality can be found with the order impugned as a party cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same matter again and again at a subsequent stage of the same proceeding. 6. In Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi, since reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 , the Supreme Court has held as under :- “7. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. 6. In Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi, since reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 , the Supreme Court has held as under :- “7. 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 a question of law - has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding 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. 8. 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. Does this however mean that because at an earlier stage of the litigation a court has decided an interlocutory matter in one way and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher court cannot at a later stage of the same litigation consider the matter again?” 7. Regard being had to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal (Supra) as also the facts and circumstances under which the order impugned has been passed by the trial court, I see no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is neither illegal nor perverse nor without jurisdiction. 8. The application is dismissed.