- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 17-7-2000 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Suit No. 340 of 1999. The fact giving rise to this revision are as follows: The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of her rights in Bungalow No. 28-A, Muir Road, Allahabad, Royal Hotel, Allahabad and other buildings and shops and moveable and Immovable properties and also for permanent injunc tion. The suit was contested by the revisionist and he claimed the ownership of these properties. Ten issues were framed in this case on 8-5- 2000. It was ordered on that date that issue Nos. 2,5,6 and 7 shall he disposed of on 19-5-2000. Later on 17-7-2000 it was ordered by the successor of the Presiding Officer on various applica tions moved by the parties that issue No. 5 shall be disposed of on 27-7-2000 and other issues shall be disposed of alongwith suit. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) I have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the op posite party No. 1. It has been argued by Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the revisionist that the order dated 8-5- 2000 was passed by predecessor of the present Presiding Officer for deciding issue Nos. 2,5,6 and 7 as preliminary issues. That this order could not have been reviewed by the suc cessor of the Presiding Officer. That no ground for review has been made out as has been mentioned in Order XLVII, CPC. It is further contended that the order passed at one stage of the suit operate as res judicata at subsequent stages of the same suit or proceedings. The impugned order, therefore, could not have been passed. Learned Counsel in support of the argument has referred to AIR 1964 SC 993, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others and AIR 1977 SC 392, Y B. Patil and others v. Y, L. Patil. In these cases it has been held that order passed at one stage of the suit operate as res judicata for subsequent stages of the proceedings. On the basis of these decisions, it has been argued that the im pugned order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction and is fit to be set aside. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that in Para 23 of the written statement it was Steaded that the plaint and vakalatnatna as also not been signed and verified by Smt. Pushpa Sachdeva. That, no issue has been framed on this point. That issue on this point should have been framed and that issue should also be decided as a preliminary issue. It has been argued that it is necessary that the said issue should be decided as preliminary case for the reason that in case it is found that the plaint and vakalatnama has not been signed by the sole plaintiff the entire suit will fail and evidence and decision on other issues will not be required.
(3.) AS against this, the argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 is that the impugned order does not amount to the review of the earlier order. That fixing a case for disposal of particular matter does not amount to a decision which may operate as res judicata between the parties. That there is no decision on any point which may operate as res judicata. Learned Counsel has also argued that only the issues that are mentioned in the Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC can be decided as preliminary issues. Reference has been made on Clause (2), which reads as follows: " (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be dis posed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issues first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. " That therefore, the issue Nos. 2,6 and 7 cannot be decided as preliminary issues.;