An order of a court on an issue in a suit operates as res judicata and is binding at subsequent stages of the same proceeding.

1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos. 4 and 5 against rejection of their application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Evidence Act').

2. Respondent No. 1 - Ram Vilas filed a suit claiming that he was adopted son of late Kishnoji, who was Pujari of the temple and prayed for a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to perform Sewa Puja and receive the offerings as adopted son and he was the only heir of Kishnoji.

3. The suit was, inter alia, resisted by the petitioners based on a Will dated 18.04.1969 executed by Kishnoji.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed application dated 10.03.1995 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, wherein, it was claimed that duly compared photo copy of the Will dated 18.04.1969 was on record and the original Will has been eaten away by termites and has been destroyed, therefore, they may be permitted to lead secondary evidence. The application was allowed by the trial court on the same day i.e. 10.03.1995 on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-.

5. Where after, when the petitioners filed their affidavits in evidence and marked the Will as exhibit, the same was opposed by the respondents and the trial court by its order dated 27.05.2006 directed that till the petitioners produce the original Will with the permission of the Court and mark the same as exhibit, till such time, the Will Exhibit-A/1 indicated in the affidavit and the related portion of the affidavit will not be read in evidence.

6. Where after, the petitioners again filed affidavits dated 18.11.2006 in evidence and when again objections were raised, by order dated 06.01.2007 the trial court ordered that in view of order dated 10.03.1995 permitting leading of secondary evidence, the compliance of order dated 27.05.2006 stands fulfilled and the affidavits dated 04.03.2006 itself can be used as evidence and, consequently, directed that the affidavits dated 04.03.2006 are accepted and the fresh affidavits dated 18.11.2006 were declined.

7. Feeling aggrieved, respondent - Jagdish Prasad filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 855/2007, wherein, by order dated 01.05.2007 it was ordered by this Court as under:-

" When the matter came up, it was heard from 2nd April, 2007 onwards, and during course of hearing, Mr. Thanvi learned counsel for the respondent was directed orally to find out, and make available for perusal of the Court the original Will, in whatever condition it may be, and on the last date of hearing being 27.4.2007, learned counsel had shown the document. In that view of the matter, since the original is available with the respondent, I think it appropriate to direct the respondent to produce in the trial Court the original Will in whatever condition it is.

In that view of the matter, since the original is being produced, obviously the objection raised in Annex.8, about marking on the copy, in absence of original, no more survives. That being the position, the portions of the affidavit obviously cannot be deleted, and thus, the order does not require any interference.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."

8. Where after, the petitioners produced the Will "in whatever condition it was" before the trial court.

9. Where after, again an application was filed by the respondents seeking to prevent the petitioners from exhibiting the Will. The trial court by its order dated 21.07.2007 rejected the application filed by the petitioners.

10. Feeling aggrieved, respondent - Jagdish Prasad filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595/2007, wherein, by order dated 07.01.2008 the writ petition was allowed and the order of the trial court dated 21.07.2007 was quashed and set aside. It was directed by this Court as under:-

"5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the subsequent developments in the case at the time of hearing of earlier writ petition No.855/2007 deci