As per case facts, a suit for specific performance was decreed in the original plaintiff’s favor. The original defendant died during execution, and her legal heirs, including the appellant, were ... impleaded. The appellant, after four years of participation, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to be deleted, claiming he was not a legal heir under Mohammedan Law but a tenant in possession, a claim the lower courts rejected as an abuse of process and barred by res judicata. The question arose whether the application for deletion from the party array was barred by the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata, given the appellant’s failure to object to his impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 at the proper time. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection, holding that the issue of the appellant’s status as a legal heir, once determined or allowed to pass unchallenged at the appropriate stage (Order XXII Rule 4 inquiry), is binding on the parties and subsequent applications to re-agitate the same are barred by the principle of res judicata, which applies to different stages of the same proceeding (citing Satyadhyan Ghosal). The Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the appellant for adopting dilatory tactics