JUDGMENT :

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order dt. 16th March, 2018, granting an application for examination of the signatures of the executor (Shri Chottu Singh) by State Forensic Science Laboratory, by the Court below; the petitioners have instituted the present writ application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mumal Rajvi, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that Late Shri Chottu Singh, resident of Village Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, executed his Will on 11th December, 1967 and got it registered on 30th December, 1967. The executor of the Will bequeathed his property to the petitioner-defendant-Shri Sukh Singh. Shri Chottu Singh, passed away in the year 1983, i.e. after about 16 years of execution of the said 'Will'. According to learned counsel, for the Will was a registered.

3. 'Will', and therefore, there can be no doubt about the genuineness of signatures of the executor (late Shri Chottu Singh). Further, an application instituted by the respondent-plaintiffs, with the same relief, was already declined by Court below on 17th October, 2016, taking into consideration all the factual matrix of the case so also various legal opinions, which were referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties. Hence, granting an application in identical factual matrix for the same relief that was already declined at an earlier stage of the suit proceedings; is a gross error committed by the Court below for the principle of res judicata is also applicable to subsequent stages of same suit proceedings. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has relied upon opinions of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal. & Ors. vs. Smit Deorajin Debi & Anr., AIR 1960 SC 941 and Y.B. Patil & Ors. vs. Y.L. Patil, (1976) 4 SCC 66.

4. Per contra; learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order dt. 16th March, 2018, contended that there cannot be any dispute on the settled legal proposition that principle of res judicata is applicable at different stages of proceedings under same suit; however, the scope of enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision being reached, as well as the specific provisions made on matters such decisions are some of the material and relevant factors which are to be considered before principle can be applied.

5. Referring to opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Erach Boman Khavar vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat & Anr. (2013) 15 SCC 655, learned counsel would submit that interlocutory orders some like stay or injunction or appointment of receiver, are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the trial Courts usually take. Thus, the orders of the nature aforesaid, do not decided in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit and do not, put an end to it even in part, and therefore, such orders in the given factual matrix are capable of being altered or varied.

6. Learned counsel also pointed out that the nature of order involved herein where earlier the application was declined by the Court below on 17th October, 2016, was later on examined by the Court while granting the application vide impugned order dt. 16th March 2018, in altogether different factual matrix wherein the parties to the suit proceedings obtained two opinions of handwriting experts and the same were placed on record, which were contrary to each other. It was in this factual matrix the Court below vide impugned order dt. 16th March, 2018, granted the application of the respondents on a careful consideration of the singular facts of the case at hand and keeping in view the two contradictory reports brought on record by the parties of the private handwriting experts. Hence, the Court below committed no illegality much less material illegality so as to call for any interfere