The Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, dismissed Civil Revision Petition No. 1306 of 2024 filed by the petitioners, Varri Jayalakshmi and another, against respondents Badiga Eswara Rao and two others. The case revolved around allegations of forgery in a sale agreement and the repeated attempts by the petitioners to seek comparison of disputed signatures on the agreement.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated in O.S. No. 52 of 2015, filed by the respondents in the XI Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking specific performance of a sale agreement dated October 5, 2012. The petitioners, defendants in the suit, denied executing the agreement, alleging forgery of the second petitioner’s signature.
In 2021, the petitioners filed an application (I.A. No. 426 of 2021) seeking comparison of the disputed signature with authenticated ones. This application was rejected, and a subsequent Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 2305 of 2022) was disposed of with specific directions for filing an appropriate application supported by authenticated documents containing admitted signatures.
Fresh Application and Rejection
Instead of complying with the earlier High Court directive, the petitioners filed an unnumbered application (GR No. 3230/06.10.23) in the trial court. They sought comparison of the disputed signature by taking fresh signatures of the second petitioner in open court. The trial court rejected the application, noting that the petitioner claimed to sign only in English, while the disputed signature was in Telugu.
Legal Issues and Observations
1. Applicability of Res Judicata: Justice Tilhari emphasized that principles of res judicata apply even at different stages of the same suit. The court held that a plea not taken in the earlier application cannot be raised subsequently unless it aligns with the liberty granted in earlier orders.
– Court Observation: “Once the plea…was available but was not taken, such a plea could legally not be taken in [the] second application.”
2. Non-Compliance with Earlier Orders: The High Court noted that the fresh application deviated from the liberty granted in CRP No. 2305 of 2022, which required the petitioners to submit authenticated documents containing admitted signatures for comparison.
– Court Observation: “The application filed was not in terms of the liberty granted by this Court.”
3. New Grounds in Subsequent Applications: The petitioners claimed they were not habituated to signing in Telugu. However, this argument was not raised in their initial written statement or the first application, leading the court to term it an afterthought.
4. Judicial Economy: Highlighting the pendency since 2015, the court directed the trial court to expedite the suit, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
Decision
The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the trial court’s rejection of the application. It reiterated that procedural propriety and adherence to judicial directions are crucial to justice delivery.
Counsel Representation
– For Petitioners: Sri Lalith, representing Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao.
– For Respondents: Ms. K. Aruna Sri Satya, representing Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad.
