ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Assailing the order dated 31.10.2019 passed in IA No. 556 of 2019 in OS No. 312 of 2013, on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the application filed by the 2nd respondent/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the revision petitioner/proposed party as 2nd defendant in the suit, was allowed, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said application show that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 50 years. It is stated that an extent of 125 Sq.yards was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 16.6.1958 and also another extent of 130 Sq.yards covered by the plaint schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 17.8.1967. It is further stated that the remaining extent of 145 Sq.yards was given as an oral gift by his father in the year 1967. Thus, the plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties referred to above as absolute owner. In the year 1968, a tiled house was said to have been constructed by the plaintiff with his own funds. As the said house became very old, the same was removed. The defendant was also living in the same village during the relevant time. The plaintiff, who became old, claims to have been living in Gollapudi in the house of her granddaughter. Due to the differences between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is alleged that the defendant illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property and started constructing a building. On coming to know about the same, the plaintiff sent his granddaughter and GPA holder Suri Sarada, and her husband Suri Koteswara Rao to request the defendant not to raise illegal structures, but the same proved futile. Having regard to the above, the suit for declaration of title and possession came to be filed. The claim of the defendant is that the said property fell to the share of his elder son. According to him, originally there was 700 Sq.yards of site for the plaintiff and in the partition, 500 Sq.yards fell to the share of defendant's elder son and 200 Sq.yards was allotted to the defendant. The claim of the defendant is that the said property fell to the share of his elder son. According to him, originally there was 700 Sq.yards of site for the plaintiff and in the partition, 500 Sq.yards fell to the share of defendant's elder son and 200 Sq.yards was allotted to the defendant. In the said circumstances, it is pleaded that it is just and necessary to implead the elder son viz., Kalapala Narendra Babu so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the petitioner sought for making the consequential amendments as under: (a) to add No. 1 before the name of the Kalapala Sitaramaiah in small cause title; (b) to add Kalapala Narendra Babu as 2nd defendant in small cause title; (c) to add 'S' after the word of defendant in small cause title; (d) to add No. 1 before name of Kalapala Sitaramaiah in long cause title; (e) to add Kalapala Narendra Babu as 2nd defendant in long cause title; 2. Kalapala Narendra Babu son of Sitaramaiah, Hindu, aged 47 years, cultivation, resident of Door No. 5-91, Chodavaram Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. (f) to add 'S' after the word of defendants in long cause title; (g) to add 1st before the word of 1st defendant wherever it occurs in Paras 1 to 4; (h) to add 'S' after the word of defendant in Paras 1 to 4; (i) to add Para 4(a) after the Para 4. 4(a) 2nd defendant is the eldest son of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant further claiming that the plaint schedule property fell to the share of 2nd defendant. The 1st respondent is alleging that originally there is 700.0 Sq.yards of site for the plaintiff and that in the partition, 500.0 Sq.yards of site fell to the share of 2nd defendant/eldest son of 1st defendant and 200.0 Sq.yards was allotted to the share of 1st defendant". 3. A counter-affidavit came to be filed disputing the same except to the extent admitted. It is stated that the petitioner therein filed the present application suppressing the material facts. According to him, in the earlier proceedings, the proposed party was impleaded pursuant to the orders of the Court in IA No. 319 of 2013 in OS No. 312 of 2013. A counter-affidavit came to be filed disputing the same except to the extent admitted. It is stated that the petitioner therein filed the present application suppressing the material facts. According to him, in the earlier proceedings, the proposed party was impleaded pursuant to the orders of the Court in IA No. 319 of 2013 in OS No. 312 of 2013. Subsequent to the orders of this Court, the petitioner therein did not comply with the orders of this Court nor disclosed the same in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition. Later, as per orders of the Court dated 6.2.2019 in IA No. 1073 of 2018 in OS No. 312 of 2013, the name of the proposed 2nd respondent was deleted and the same has become final. In view of the above, it is stated that the present application cannot be entertained. 4. Considering the rival arguments advanced by both parties and taking into consideration the earlier orders passed by the Trial Court as well as this Court, the Trial Court allowed the IA, which is impugned in the present revision. 5. Mr. A.P. Venugopal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit stating that the name of the 2nd defendant was already deleted as per orders of the Court in IA No. 1073 of 2018 and when the said order has become final, any order passed by this Court would be barred by res judicata and issue of estoppel. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court are illegal and incorrect. 6. On the other hand, Mr. G.V.R. Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, would submit that the question of res judicata or issue of estoppel would not apply to the facts of the present case. He took the Court through various documents and judgments to show that the order under challenge requires no interference. 7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court was right in allowing the application filed for impleading the elder son of the defendant, as 2nd defendant in the suit? 8. As seen from the record, OS No. 312 of 2013 was originally filed by the plaintiff viz., Kalapala Chenna Krishnaiah for declaration of title and for consequential possession of the suit schedule property i.e., vacant site in an extent of 400 Sq.yards at Chodavaram Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 8. As seen from the record, OS No. 312 of 2013 was originally filed by the plaintiff viz., Kalapala Chenna Krishnaiah for declaration of title and for consequential possession of the suit schedule property i.e., vacant site in an extent of 400 Sq.yards at Chodavaram Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The original plaintiff (deceased) was represented by Smt. Suri Sarada as the GPA holder. Being the absolute owner, the original plaintiff during his lifetime by gift deed dated 26.3.2013 gifted the property to the 2nd plaintiff viz., Smt. Suri Sarada and the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Patamata, Vijayawada. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died. Since the property was alleged have been gifted, Smt. Suri Sarada filed IA No. 364 of 2013 under Order XXII Rules 4 and 5 read with Section 151 CPC to implead her as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit. The same was opposed. However, the said I.A. was allowed by order dated 6.4.2015. IA No. 319 of 2013 was also filed by plaintiff No. 2 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead the revision petitioner as defendant No. 2, as he was claiming absolute ownership over the property. Upon contest, IA No. 319 of 2013 was allowed by order dated 6.4.2015. Challenging the orders passed in IA Nos. 364 and 319 of 2013, CRP Nos. 2634 and 2654 of 2015 came to be filed before this Court. Upon hearing both parties, this Court by common order dated 21.12.2015 allowed CRP No. 2634 of 2015 by setting aside the orders in IA No. 364 of 2013 and dismissed CRP No. 2654 of 2015, which was filed against the orders in IA No. 319 of 2013. Aggrieved by the order in CRP No. 2634 of 2015 (challenging the order in IA No. 364 of 2013), review CRPMP No. 8183 of 2016 was filed. By common order dated 30.11.2016, the Hon'ble High Court passed the following order: "Heard at length both sides in the revision petitioners and unnumbered review petition and perused the material on record. No doubt Sri A.P. Venu Gopal, learned Counsel for the 1st defendant/revision petitioner of CRP No. 2634 of 2015 submits that once the order impugned against the order passed against dead person applies to CRP No. 2634 of 2015 same is equally apply to CRP No. 2654 of 2015. No doubt Sri A.P. Venu Gopal, learned Counsel for the 1st defendant/revision petitioner of CRP No. 2634 of 2015 submits that once the order impugned against the order passed against dead person applies to CRP No. 2634 of 2015 same is equally apply to CRP No. 2654 of 2015. Thus, same also can be reopened as duty bound as per the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit on the principle of act of the Court not sanctioned shall prejudice no man and also for the fact that the inherent power which inheres in every Court as per Section 151 CPC which is saved by the provisions of the Code with all breadth, width and length and elasticity to the necessity but for the fact that same is not ordered specially to list before the Court. Having regard to the above, instead of suo motu entertaining review by re-opening the matter and setting aside the dismissal order in CRP No. 2654 of 2015, but for which allowing order of CRP No. 2634 of 2015, it is made clear that the common order which also covers CRP No. 2654 of 2015 does not come in the way for the 2nd defendant whose impleadment impugned by the 1st defendant in CRP No. 2654 of 2015 was not impleaded as part in the 2 revision petitions for what is endorsed as not necessary party. Having regard to the above and in the result, the three petitions are disposed of giving liberty to said 2nd plaintiff to file fresh applications before the lower Court invoking Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 Clause (2) and Section 146 CPC, by virtue of this order to come on record as claiming rights by virtue of settlement stepping into the shoes of the 1st plaintiff, to continue the litigation as settlee/donee to decide from any contest by the defendants in this regard also as the power of the Court conferred by Order I Rule 10 Clause (2) CPC is available at any stage of proceedings which include suit, appeal or revision or final decree proceedings or execution proceedings where felt either as necessary party or as proper party to implead suo motu even any party for effective adjudication of the lis. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. No costs". 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. No costs". 9. A perusal of the order referred above shows that review CRP MP No. 8183 of 2016 was disposed of giving liberty to the 2nd plaintiff to file fresh applications before the lower Court to come on record, claiming rights by virtue of a settlement, stepping into the shoes of the 1st plaintiff, to continue the litigation. In other words, a reading of the order discloses that as if review order came to be passed in both the CRPs referred above. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd plaintiff filed the amended plaint impleading the revision petitioner herein as defendant No. 2. At that stage, IA No. 1073 of 2018 came to be filed to delete his name in the short and long cause titles of the suit. Though opposed, the same was allowed on the ground that without filing a separate application after disposal of the review CRP MP, the 2nd defendant could not have been shown to be impleaded by virtue of the order passed prior to passing of orders in the review CRP MP. Thereafter, IA No. 556 of 2019 came to be filed seeking impleadment of the revision petitioner as 2nd defendant and the same was allowed. 10. Section 11 of CPC which deals with res judicata states that once the matter is finally decided by competent Court, no party to such proceedings can be allowed to re-open the same in subsequent litigation. The reason being that finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. It is also to be noted here that Section 11 namely, the doctrine of res judicata is based on the need to give finality to the judicial decisions. The principle underlying Section 11 applies as also between two stages of the same litigation and if any interlocutory order decides a controversy between the parties, such decisions would bind the parties thereto and would operate as res judicata at all subsequent stages of the suit. 11. The principle underlying Section 11 applies as also between two stages of the same litigation and if any interlocutory order decides a controversy between the parties, such decisions would bind the parties thereto and would operate as res judicata at all subsequent stages of the suit. 11. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 , the Apex Court held thus: "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 are 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. There are other orders which are also interlocutory, but would fall into a different category. The difference from the once just now referred to lies in the fact that they are not directed to maintaining the status quo or to preserve the property pending the final adjudication, but are designed to ensure the just, smooth, orderly and expeditious disposal of the suit. They are interlocutory in the sense that they do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit, nor put an end to the litigation". 12. They are interlocutory in the sense that they do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit, nor put an end to the litigation". 12. Similarly, in Devidayal Rolling Mills v. Prakash Chimanla, (1993) 2 SCC 470 , the Apex Court reiterated the principle that where the principle of res judicata is invoked in the case of different stages of proceedings in the same suit, the nature of the proceedings, the scope of 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. 13. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the above decisions, the question that now falls for consideration is whether the principles of res judicata or issue of estoppel would apply to the case on hand? 14. As seen from the record, IA No. 1073 of 2018 is filed by the revision petitioner to delete his name from the short and long cause title was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 6.2.2019 on the ground that after the disposal of the review CRPMP, the plaintiff herein ought to have filed a separate application based on the order in review CRPMP and not basing on the earlier order passed. In order to appreciate as to whether a separate application is required to be made for the purpose of bringing the revision petitioner as 2nd defendant in the suit, it is useful to excerpt the order in the review, which reads thus: "Having regard to the above and in the result, the three petitions are disposed of giving liberty to said 2nd plaintiff to file fresh applications before the lower Court invoking Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 Clause (2) and Section 146 CPC by virtue of this order to come on record as claiming rights by virtue of settlement stepping into the shoes of the 1st plaintiff, to continue the litigation as settlee/donee to decide from any contest by the defendants in this regard also as the power of the Court conferred by Order I Rule 10 Clause (2) CPC is available at any stage of proceedings which include suit, appeal or revision or final decree proceedings or execution proceedings where felt either as necessary party or as proper party to implead suo motu even any party for effective adjudication of the lis." 15. A reading of the order does not indicate that a separate application is required to be filed to bring the revision petitioner as 2nd defendant in the suit. It appears that the order in IA No. 319 of 2013 was not set aside or modified. Having regard to the above, IA No. 556 of 2019 came to be filed under Order I Rule 10 by the plaintiff to implead the revision petitioner as defendant No. 2 in the suit. Therefore, the application, which has been filed to implead the revision petitioner, cannot be said to be barred by rule of res judicata though in both the proceedings i.e., IA No. 1073 of 2018 and IA No. 556 of 2019, the revision petitioner was sought to be impleaded as 2nd defendant. Though the doctrine of res judicata is based on the need of finality to the judicial decisions, the order passed by this Court in the review application gives liberty to the 2nd plaintiff to file fresh application before the lower Court by invoking Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 Clause (2) and Section 146 CPC to come on record as claiming rights by virtue of settlement. Even otherwise, it is to be noted here that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and having regard to the claim of the defendant that the proposed defendant who is the elder son is having a share over the property, this Court is of the opinion that he would be a just and necessary party to the suit. The ground on which the Trial Court rejected the application is that separate application should have been filed after disposal of the review CRPMP and not based on the earlier orders. Even if it is accepted, still it is only a technicality whereby the 2nd plaintiff has to only make a formal application. Having regard to the facts in issue, without going into the technicalities as to whether a separate application has to be filed or not or whether the application filed would be just and proper, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation; and the stand taken in the written statement, more so when the impleadment of proposed party as 2nd defendant is at the instance of the plaintiff. It is open to the defendants to take steps in accordance with law for filing additional written statement and for the proposed D2 to file a written statement pursuant to such impleadment. 16. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the order under revision. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.