P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE Union Bank of India at Pulla filed a suit in O. S. No. 31/84 for recovery of an amount of Rs, 39, 401-25 ps. advanced as a loan to the first defendant by name Dommeti Venkanna. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors of that suit loan. The defence of the first defendant to the suit is that he made a pavment of Rs. 20,000/- on 20-7-1980 in addition to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- which he claims to have made on 8th February, 1980, and obtained two receipts evidencing the said two payments. It appears, the two receipts produced bv the first defendant bear the signatures which are claimed by the first defendant to be that of one A. L. Narayana, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank at the relevant time. A. L. Narayana admitted having issued receipt only for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 8-2-1980 and denied the genuineness of the second receipt dt. 20-7-1980 which, prima facie, evidences the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- by the bank. Thus, one of the important issues that has come up for trial is, whether the receipt apparently evidencing payment of Rs. 20,000/- is one signed, by the then manager a. L. Narayana. Some time in the early part of the year 1982, at the instance of the first defendant, the Court sought the opinion of an handwriting expert by name S. N. Sen of Simla, who opined that the signatures on those receipts are those of Sri A. L. Narayana. Thereafter, it appears that the Bank has moved the Court in I. A. No. 116/85 and 136/85 seeking the assistance of the Court to send the disputed signatures for the opinion of another hand-writing expert. But I am told the lower Court has dismissed both these applications. Although I do not find any material paper before me produced by the first defendant, 1 am told that on the basis of the expert opinion of Sen of Simla, the case was tried and was now ready for being argued. I am told that it was at that stage, the Union Bank of India filed i. A. No. 499/86 seeking a direction from the lower court to permit to take photos of the two receipts marked as Exs. B1 and B2 and other standard signatures and writings in the presence of both the advocates and sheristedar and obtain the opinion of another ha ad-writing expert. It appears, this expert was present in the Court and promised in the open Court to give his opinion within a weeks s time. That application of the bank is strongly opposed by the first defendant. From the record I find the first defendant saying that the present petition is filed to protract the litigation and the orders passed by the lower court in I. A. Nos. 116/85 and 136/85 debar the court to permit a party to obtain expert s opinion later. Over-ruling these objections, the learned Subordinate Judge had ordered I A. No. 499/86. It is against that order the. present revision petition has been filed.

( 2 ) WHEN this matter came up for hearing yesterday, the learned counsel for the petitioner opened bis arguments by saying that the earlier orders passed in the above-mentioned I. As. 116 and 136 of 1985 would operate as res judicata and that, therefore, the present order passed by the lower court in LA. No. 499/86 should be set aside. This submission of the learned counsel is totally without any legal basis. Res judicata would apply only to those orders which finally settle the rights of the parties. They would not apply to orders made as steps in procedure. The effect of the order under revision is only to permit the bank to bring its own expert witaess to give his opinion on the genuineness of the disputed signatures. Clearly such an order has nothing to do with the merits. It is a step which a court is entitled to take and is, in fact, bound to take in order to settle the merits of the controversy between the parties. The theory of res-judicata will have no relevance in the circumstances of that nature. In Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar a Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through Rajagopala ayyangar, J. , had anthoritatively ruled as fol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document