JUDGMENT : SANJA Y KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 4.7.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj in the Original Suit No.134 of 2019 whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C was rejected by the learned court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Original Suit No.134 of 2019 was instituted for declaring the sale deed No.1006 of 2010 not binding on plaintiff and the plaintiff put to be in possession over the suit land. She submits that one petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed before the learned court for changing the schedule of the property and the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the same by the impugned order dated 4.7.2022 on the ground that it will change the nature of the suit property. She submits that the learned court has erred in saying so that only internal area was required to be rectified. On this ground, she submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 submits that the said amendment was earlier sought to be made by the petition dated 25.9.2019 and the same was dismissed by the order dated 10.05.2022. He submits that earlier order was not challenged in any higher court and for the same issue, the present petition has been filed and in view of that, the petition is barred by res-judicata. On this ground he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.4 wherein the order dated 10.05.2022 passed in Original Suit No.134 of 2019 has been annexed. By the said order, the learned court has decided the petition dated 25.9.2019 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the same ground was taken in the said petition which has been discussed in the entire order sheet and subsequently the present petition has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court. By the said order, the learned court has decided the petition dated 25.9.2019 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the same ground was taken in the said petition which has been discussed in the entire order sheet and subsequently the present petition has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court. The first amendment petition was rejected by order dated 10.05.2022 and the said order was not challenged in any petition in any higher court and thereafter the second petition has been filed and the same court has decided the same. 6. If such a situation is there, certainly the second petition is barred by res-judicata as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas e of Satyadhyan Goshal v. Devorjit Devi reported in A.I.R. 1960 SC 931 wherein at paragraph no.8 of the said judgment, it has been held that an order at the stage of proceeding acts as res-judicata at all later stage of same proceeding. 7. The same court has passed the earlier order and the contents of the earlier petition and present petition are similar and as such, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is dismissed. 8. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.