JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for private respondents no.2 & 3 on caveat. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the DDC, Bahraich whereby an application moved by the petitioner dated 28.03.2024 has been disposed of in terms of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private respondents no.2 & 3 had filed a revision before the respondent no.1. The said revision was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Upon notice of the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed an application dated 23.03.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No.8 to the petition. In terms of the said application, it was urged by the petitioner that the revision is barred by limitation and this issue of limitation should be considered as a preliminary issue and be decided first. On the said application, the Presiding Officer, by means of order dated 30.03.2022, passed an order that all the issues shall be considered and fixed the application for hearing on 13.04.2022. 4. Once again, the petitioners moved an another application dated 28.03.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No.9 to the petition, wherein the petitioners again raised the issue of limitation and that it must be decided first as a preliminary issue and they also referred to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Cosolidation and Others (2022) SCC OnLine All 107. This application dated 28.03.2024 came to be disposed of by means of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 wherein the court rejected the same on the ground that even earlier a similar application was moved by the petitioner which already had been disposed of. 5. Deputy Director of Cosolidation and Others (2022) SCC OnLine All 107. This application dated 28.03.2024 came to be disposed of by means of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 wherein the court rejected the same on the ground that even earlier a similar application was moved by the petitioner which already had been disposed of. 5. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner has approached this Court and it has been primarily argued that the first application moved by the petitioner on 23.03.2022 was not disposed of and was rather pending, however, the same has been misconstrued by the respondent No.1 and it has erroneously treated the earlier application to be rejected, consequently, the second application was also rejected which is per-se incorrect and against the second. 6. This as per the learned counsel for the petitioners is an error which cannot be sustained as the impugned order is against the record and in such circumstances, after setting aside the order dated 30.07.2024, an appropriate direction be issued to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the preliminary issue raised by the petitioners prior to the hearing of the revision on its merits. 7. Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the caveator has refuted the aforesaid submission and has pointed out that the alleged application which is said to have been moved by the petitioner on 28.03.2024, was preceded by another application which was moved by the petitioner on 19.02.2024 wherein a similar prayer was made as made in the application dated 28.03.2024. It has been urged that the petitioners have deliberately not brought that application on record inasmuch as the said application was decided by a cogent and reasoned order dated 15.03.2024 which has also not been brought on record and to the notice of Court apart from the fact that in the entire pleadings there is not even a whisper of the aforesaid facts. It is urged by Shri Sahai that once the application moved by the petitioner dated 19.02.2024 had been decided in terms of the order dated 15.03.2024, it was not open for the petitioners to have moved the same application based on the same cause of action without first assailing the order dated 15.03.2024. It is urged by Shri Sahai that once the application moved by the petitioner dated 19.02.2024 had been decided in terms of the order dated 15.03.2024, it was not open for the petitioners to have moved the same application based on the same cause of action without first assailing the order dated 15.03.2024. It is in the aforesaid context, it is urged that the instant petition is not maintainable and apart from this fact it also suffers from concealment of material facts and thus deserves to be dismissed. 8. The Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. At the outset it may be noticed that Shri Sahai, learned counsel for the caveator has provided a copy of the order passed by the DDC dated 15.03.2024 whereby an application moved by the petitioner on 19.02.2024 came to be decided, a copy of the said order was also provided to Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners who had sought time to confirm the aforesaid fact. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the matter was taken apart for some time and Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the earlier application dated 19.02.2024 indeed was moved by the petitioners which came to be decided by means of the order dated 15.03.2024 which also could not be disputed. 10. Apart from the aforesaid fact, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the application dated 23.03.2022 still remains pending and no final orders have been passed but treating the same as having been decided, the basic grievance of the petitioners that the issue of limitation may be heard as a preliminary issue, has not been taken note of by the authorities and in such circumstances, the only prayer of the petitioners is that their application may be decided first before entering into the merits of the case. 11. A perusal of the record would reveal that insofar as the first application dated 23.03.2022 is concerned, it clearly indicates that the Presiding Office had already expressed its mind that the said objections would be considered along with all other issues which have been agitated or is the subject matter of the revision itself. 11. A perusal of the record would reveal that insofar as the first application dated 23.03.2022 is concerned, it clearly indicates that the Presiding Office had already expressed its mind that the said objections would be considered along with all other issues which have been agitated or is the subject matter of the revision itself. It is also true that the petitioners thereafter had moved an application dated 19.02.2024, a copy of which is neither on record nor the said fact was indicated in the instant petition. The said application came to be decided by means of the order dated 15.03.2024, a copy of which has been provided by Shri Sahai to the Court as well as to the learned counsel for the petitioners but this order could not be dispute by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The copy of the said order is taken on record. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances where an application moved by the petitioners dated 19.02.2024 stood decided by the order dated 15.03.2024, admittedly there is no challenge to the said order as of till date. Once the Court had already passed an order in terms of the order dated 15.03.2024, a similar application moved at a later point of time on 28.03.2024 perhaps would not be maintainable and considering the aforesaid, the respondent No.1 has rejected the same. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any error in the order passed by the DDC specially when a similar application had already been rejected. It is now too well settled to be disputed that the prospects of res judicata does not only apply at different proceedings but also applies on different stage of one particular litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners also could not dispute that the order dated 15.03.2024 was passed after hearing the parties on the merits of the application and neither the said order was assailed and as such, the same continues to bind the Court which had passed the order, hence, it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error had been committed by the respondent No.1 in rejecting the application dated 28.03.2024. 14. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Since the petitioners have not brought the complete facts on record including the application dated 19.02.2024 and order dated 15.03.2024, hence, the petition also suffers from the vice of concealment of material facts, hence, a sum of Rs.2,500/-has been imposed as cost on the petitioners to be deposited by them with the Mediation Centre of this Court within ten days from today.