Dismissal of a revision petition with a one-word order does not operate as res judicata and does not bar the aggrieved party from re-agitating the matter in appeal.

1. Dalip Singh was the last male-holder who owned about 57 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land in village Golewal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. On his death, mutation was recorded in favour of Karam Singh defendant on the basis of a registered will dated 22nd Aug., 1963 and he also entered into possession of the land left by Dalip Singh. Jagta, son of Dalip Singh, filed the present suit for possession on the basis that the land held by Dalip Singh was ancestral that he was his sole heir being his son that after the death of Dalip Singh, Karam Singh and his two brothers entered into forcible possession of the land in dispute after getting mutation sanctioned in favour of Karam Singh on the basis of some will which Dalip Singh had never executed nor was he entitled to do so under the custom. Certain other pleas were also raised with which we are not concerned at this stage. Karam Singh, defendant, contested the suit and pleaded that Dalip Singh had executed the will in his favour in a sound and disposing state of mind and the same was rightly given effect to by the revenue authorities while sanctioning the mutation. It was also pleaded that Shmt. Kartari was daughter of Dalip Singh who was later on impleaded as defendant No.4 and in any event she would be entitled to half of the property; and therefore, suit of the plaintiffs could not he decreed for the entire land. The trial court found that the plaintiff was son of Dalip Singh and shmt. Kartari defendant was daughter of Dalip Singh. With regard to the will set up by Karam Singh defendant it was held that the same was not proved. Hence a decree for half share was passed in favour of Jagta plaintiff. Karam Singh defendant took the matter in appeal. The only point urged before the lower appellate court was that the trial court was in error in not granting permission to Karam Singh defendant to prove the will after exhibiting the same. The lower appellate court repelled the contention on the sole ground that the order of the trial court declining permission to Karam Singh to prove and get the will exhibited was sought to be revised by Karam Singh by filing Civil Revision No.10 of 1968 in this Court which was dismissed on 8th January, 1968, and, therefore, in view of the High Court order he could not be allowed to re-agitate the matter in appeal. In the absence of a will, Karam Singh could have no claim to the property in dispute with the result the appeal was dismissed. Karam Singh defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.

2. The crucial point which will arise for consideration in this appeal would be whether the order of this Court passed in revision would either operate as res judicata or bar Karam Singh to reagitate the same matter either before the first appellate court or before this Court now in appeal. In order to go into this matter, it will be useful to notice as to what order was passed by this Court in the revision petition. A look at the order which is at page 39 of the file of the lower appellate court would show that the revision was dismissed in limine with one-word order. "Dismissed". It cannot be disputed that if this Court had found that there was no merit in the revision then such an order would have operated as res judicata between the parties at least up to the stage of this Court but if the revision was not dismissed by a speaking order, then the possibility cannot be excluded that this Court declined to entertain the revision either on the ground that the impugned order did not amount to a case decided and, therefore, no revision was competent or because no error of jurisdiction was shown. In either of these two eventualities, it would not be held that this Court found the order of the court below to be correct on merits. The effect in this situation would be that this Court was helpless in entertaining a revision and no more. Whether such an order would operate as res judicata or would come in the way of the aggrieved party to impugn t