The principles of res judicata apply at different stages of a suit, preventing new pleas not raised in earlier applications.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Lalith, learned counsel, representing Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K. Aruna Sri Satya, learned counsel, representing Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are the defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively in O.S. No. 52 of 2015 pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents filed O.S. No.52 of 2015 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for a specific performance of contract pursuant to the sale agreement dated 05.10.2012 said to have been executed by the defendants of the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, along with other prayers. In the said suit, the defendants/petitioner filed written statement denying inter alia the execution of the agreement of sale, which was said to be a forged document. The signatures of the defendant/petitioner No. 2 were denied. In the said suit, the Petitioner filed I.A. No.426 of 2021 to compare the petitioner No. 2's signature on the said agreement of sale. The application was rejected on 30.08.2022. Challenging the order dated.30.05.2022, the petitioners filed CRP No. 2305 of 2022, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.11.2022. This Court after considering the contention of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner/2nd defendant therein was a government employee, left it open to the petitioners/defendants to file appropriate application by placing authenticated documents containing admitted signatures of petitioner No. 2/defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. It was further provided that if such an application was filed along with authenticated documents containing admitted signatures, the learned trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs. The operative part of the judgment dated 22.11.2022 reads as under:

"13. However, in view of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioner No. 2/defendant No. 2 is government employee, it is left open to the petitioners/defendants to file appropriate application by placing authenticated documents containing admitted signatures of petitioner No. 2/defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. If such an application is filed along with authenticated documents containing admitted signatures, the court below shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs.

14. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs."

4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application being unnumbered I.A. with GR No. 3230/06.10.23 for comparison of disputed signatures on the agreement of sale with the prayer that the signature of the 2nd defendant/2nd petitioner be taken in open Court and be send for comparison. The prayer in unnumbered I.A reads as under:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners most humbly prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to order to send the suit document No. 1 i.e., unregistered sale agreement dated 5-10-2012, to the Hand writing expert, by comparing the petitioner's admitted signatures will be obtain in open court, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience or otherwise the petitioners will be suffer huge and irreparable loss and there be will be miscarriage of justice."

5. The said application has been rejected on 7/5/2024 at the stage of numbering. The rejection is on the ground that once the plea of the petitioner was that he never signed in Telugu and always singed in English, the sign on Ex.A1 being in Telugu no useful purpose will be served, since he signs in English only as contended by him.

6. Challenging the order dated 7/5/2024the present CRP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Sri Lalitha Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial