(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 24-06-2024 in I.A.No.57/2024 in O.S.No.26/2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 26/2015 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet during the pendency of the CRP before this Hon’ble Court and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Hon’ble Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders, dated 18-10-2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2411 of 2024 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.57 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2015 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.26 of 2015.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that in the suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, the defendant no.1 filed petition vide I.A.No.57 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 04.04.1991 along with Ex.A9-part payment endorsement dated 04.04.1991 to handwriting expert for opinion, contending that though the defendant no.1 subscribed her signatures appear on first and second pages of agreement of sale, but she never subscribed her signature appear on the part payment endorsement and the said endorsement was brought into existence only with a view to get over the period of limitation.

                  (ii) The said petition was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing counter contending that the said petition is hit by res judicata in view of dismissal of I.A.No.718 of 2020 earlier filed by defendant no.1 for the self same relief, which was confirmed by this Court in CRP No.2731 of 2022 and therefore, the petition is not maintainable and there is no need for sending the document to expert, since the contents of the petition are vague intended to drag on the matter.

                  (iii) The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for both side and upon perusing the material available on record, allowed the petition holding that since the earlier one was dismissed for want of foundational pleadings in the written statement and thereafter additional written statement was permitted to be filed wherein the defendant no.1 had laid necessary foundational pleadings and therefore the petition is not hit by the principles of res judicata and granting the relief sought by defendant no.1 would enable the Court to decide the controversy of the suit comprehensively.

                  (iv) The said order was assailed by the plaintiffs by this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for Civil Revision Petitioner, Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Ms.B.Revathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

5. Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for Civil Revision Petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court would contend that the petition is not maintainable since hit by the principles of res judicata, since earlier petition filed for the same relief was dismissed and the said dismissal orders were confirmed in the revision and had attained finality. He would further contend that evidence so far let in would establish execution of agreement as well as part payment endorsement by defendant no.1 and hence the document need not be sent to handwriting expert for again establishing the proved facts. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon mistaken view of the matter that since the defendant by way of additional written statement brought foundational pleadings regarding forgery, erroneously allowed the petition, which has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.1 while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition contended that the principles of res judicata would not apply to the facts of the present case, since the earlier petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of foundational pleadings regarding forgery. He would further contend that the plaintiffs with a view to save limitation brought into existence a part payment endorsement by forging the signature of the defendant no.1 and with a view to prove the same the said disputed signature is sought to be compared with admitted signatures of defendant no.1 contained on first and second pages of the agreement of sale, which would be only way to effectively substantiate the defence regarding forgery. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions rightly allowed the petition and the said reasoned order does not merit interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. Admittedly, the petition filed by defendant no.1 vide I.A.No. 718 of 2020 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking the very same relief was dismissed and the said dismissal orders were confirmed in CRP by this Court.

9. Admittedly, the earlier petition was dismissed for lack of foundational pleading. Subsequently, the defendant no.1 filed petition to permit her to file additional written statement putting forth the plea of forgery of the part payment endorsement and the same was allowed and challenging the said order CRP No.2827 of 2024 was filed by the defendants. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge in view of the changed circumstances, the order earlier passed in I.A.No.718 of 2020 would not be a bar for filing subsequent petition for the same relief.

10. The specific defence of the defendant no.1 is that her signature on part payment endorsement was forged to save limitation and thus she wants to compare her signatures contained on the agreement of sale with the disputed signature contained on part payment endorsement. Though expert opinion is not a conclusive, in order to provide a fair opportunity of proving the defence set out by the defendant no.1, the relief sought in the petition of sending the document to handwriting expert has to be allowed. The learned trial Judge rightly did so and the same does not require any interference. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.