R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 13.6.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar, who allowed the application of the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at the appellate stage. It may be mentioned here that after the passing of the order dated 13.6.1998, the first Appellate Court passed the order dated 21.8.1998 and remanded back the suit to the trial Court for adjudication on the plea that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC of the defendants has been allowed vide order dated 13.6.1998.
(2.) IN the present revision, I will adjudicate about the legality and propriety of the orders dated 3.6.1998 and 21.8.1998. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Smt. Har Kaur filed a suit for declaration that she is owner of the suit property on the basis of registered will dated 10.9.1971. The suit was contested by Balwant Singh and Sultan Singh, who also put up an unregistered Will and besides that it was also pleaded by Balwant Singh that he is the adopted son of Dhan Singh. The trial Court ignored the unregistered Will and relied upon the registered Will of Dhan Singh in favour of Har Kaur and decreed the suit.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree, the defendants filed the first Appeal before the first Appellate Court and during the pendency of the appeal they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying that there was earlier litigation in the name of Har Kaur v. Balwant Singh etc. and that suit was dismissed and it was observed by the trial Court that adoption deed dated 27.1.1970 was a valid document. The defendants pleaded that they may be allowed to place on record the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Court in the earlier suit. This application was contested by the plaintiff and vide impugned order dated 13.6.1998 the application was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Vide order dated 21.8.1998 the first Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court.;