The principles of res judicata apply to subsequent applications in the same proceedings, preventing re-agitation of previously decided matters without new evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner is challenging the legality of impugned Order dated 26.08.2024 below Ex.141 passed by the Trial Court, in Spl. C.S. No. 626/2016 between Santosh Vs. Punit and others, thereby allowed the application filed by respondents under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking issuance of commission to examine authenticity of signatures of defendants on agreement to sell dated 28.06.2016.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the original defendants i.e. Shri Punit Grover and Smt. Rohini Punit Grover entered into an agreement to sell, their immovable property for valuable consideration of Rs.26,51,000/- to petitioner and out of total agreed sale consideration, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid by petitioner by cash and a sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid by petitioner by Cheque dated 15.07.2016 to the respondents and it was agreed that balance sale consideration would be paid by petitioner to the respondents at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed.

4. Even after repeated demand of the petitioner, the respondents failed to perform their part of contract as envisaged in Agreement to Sell, therefore, the petitioner instituted and filed suit for specific performance of contract against original defendants. The respondents submitted their written statement and claimed that they have not signed any such Agreement to Sell and further alleged that they have not executed any Agreement to Sell in respect of suit property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has prepared forged document and defendants have never seen any agreement, nor has signed agreement in respect of suit property. The respondents also alleged that petitioner was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs.8400/- and was not paying rent regularly and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2016 onwards and the cheque of Rs.51,000/- issued by petitioner was towards arrears of rent for period 01.04.2016 onwards, covering the period 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 (Rs.50,400/-).

5. The respondents moved an application dated 24.01.2024 below Ex. 123 under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking issuance of commission to examine the authenticity of alleged signatures of the defendants on agreement to sell dated 28.06.2016. The learned Trial Court by order dated 06.04.2024, was rejected the application. The respondents made efforts to serve summon upon Sukhpreet Kaur whose report dated 09.11.2016 is filed on record by them.

6. The respondents on or about 12.08.2024 moved an application at Ex.141 under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking issuance of commission to examine the authenticity of signatures of defendants on Agreement to Sell dated 28.06.2016. The learned Trial Court, this time observed that the suit involves the question of scientific investigation therefore issuance of the commission is necessary in the interest of justice and allowed the application by its impugned Order dated 26.08.2024. The said order is the subject matter of challenged in the present petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court although having rejected earlier application (Ex.123) filed by respondents praying for identical relief which is prayed for again in application at Ex. 141, it was not open for the learned Trial Court to allow application at Ex.141 as the issue regarding appointment of handwriting expert was directly and substantially in issue in the previous application at Ex.123 and the same having been rejected by the learned Trial Court on merits. The learned Trial court miserably failed to understand that the said order dated 06.04.2024 below Ex.123 would operate as Res Judicata.

8. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has observed about the case of respondents, but the learned Trial Court misdirected itself by allowing the ap