Bombay High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Allowing Handwriting Expert Appointment: Reaffirms Res Judicata in Repeated Applications for Authenticity of Agreement to Sell

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court overturned the Trial Court’s order granting a second application for appointing a handwriting expert to examine signatures on an agreement to sell. The High Court held that the second application was barred by res judicata, as the issue had already been conclusively decided by the Trial Court in an earlier application.

Facts:

1. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property for ₹26,51,000. He claimed to have partially paid the sale consideration through cash and cheque.
2. The respondents denied signing or executing the agreement, alleging that it was forged. They argued that the petitioner was a tenant who issued the cheque towards arrears of rent.
3. The respondents initially filed an application (Ex. 123) under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the appointment of a handwriting expert to verify the signatures on the disputed agreement. This application was rejected by the Trial Court, reasoning that:
   • Direct witnesses (attesting witnesses and the scribe of the document) were available to testify.
   • Sending the document for scientific investigation was unnecessary at that stage.
4. The respondents subsequently filed another application (Ex. 141) for the same purpose, arguing that their earlier inability to serve summons to the expert justified a renewed request. The Trial Court allowed this second application, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition challenging the order.

Issues:

1. Does the principle of res judicata apply to the subsequent application (Ex. 141) for appointing a handwriting expert?
2. Did the Trial Court err in allowing the second application despite the availability of direct witnesses to the agreement?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Barred by Res Judicata:
   • The Trial Court had already decided the issue in the earlier application (Ex. 123), and the order rejecting that application had attained finality.
   • The principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively decided, barred the respondents from filing another application on the same grounds.
2. Availability of Direct Witnesses:
   • Direct witnesses to the agreement, including attesting witnesses and the scribe, were available to testify, making the appointment of a handwriting expert unnecessary.
   • The respondents’ repeated applications prolonged the litigation and delayed justice.
3. Misuse of Judicial Process:
   • Allowing the second application undermined the finality of judicial decisions and encouraged unnecessary litigation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Not Barred by Res Judicata:
   • The earlier application was dismissed on technical grounds, not on merits.
   • The subsequent application was justified because efforts to summon the original handwriting expert failed, necessitating a new attempt to ensure proper adjudication.
2. Necessity of Scientific Investigation:
   • The disputed signatures on the agreement required scientific analysis to resolve the issue conclusively.
   • The Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion to allow the second application in the interest of justice.

Analysis of the Law:

The High Court emphasized the principle of res judicata as a cornerstone of judicial efficiency and finality. It relied on the following legal principles:

1. Res Judicata in the Same Proceedings:
   • As held in Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorjin Debi, the principle of res judicata applies not only to separate proceedings but also to different stages of the same litigation. Once an issue is decided, it cannot be reopened.
2. Finality of Decisions:
   • In Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain, the Supreme Court held that judicial decisions must attain finality to prevent endless litigation.
3. Judicial Consistency:
   • In Shivaji Vishnu Kshirsagar v. Sayaji Vitthal Kshirsagar, it was reiterated that repeated applications on the same issue undermine judicial consistency and delay resolution.
4. Proper Use of Judicial Discretion:
   • The High Court noted that the Trial Court, in its earlier order, had provided clear reasons for rejecting the first application, including the availability of direct witnesses. Allowing a similar application without new or compelling circumstances was a misuse of judicial discretion.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain:
   • Established that principles of res judicata apply to subsequent stages of the same proceedings.
2. Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorjin Debi:
   • Reaffirmed that issues decided at an earlier stage cannot be reopened at a later stage.
3. Shivaji Vishnu Kshirsagar v. Sayaji Vitthal Kshirsagar:
   • Highlighted the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the inadmissibility of repeated applications on the same issue.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Res Judicata Barred the Second Application:
   • The High Court held that the second application (Ex. 141) was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issue had already been decided in the earlier application (Ex. 123).
   • The earlier order rejecting the first application had attained finality, as it was not challenged by the respondents.
2. Availability of Direct Witnesses:
   • The High Court emphasized that direct witnesses to the agreement were available, and their testimony was sufficient to prove or disprove the document’s authenticity. Resorting to scientific investigation was unnecessary.
3. Misuse of Judicial Process:
   • Allowing repeated applications undermined the integrity of judicial proceedings and delayed the resolution of the case.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the Trial Court’s order allowing the second application for appointing a handwriting expert. It reaffirmed the importance of res judicata in maintaining judicial consistency and preventing unnecessary litigation.

Implications:

1. Judicial Finality:
   • The judgment underscores the need for finality in judicial decisions to ensure efficient and timely resolution of disputes.
2. Caution Against Repeated Applications:
   • Trial Courts must rigorously evaluate repeat applications to prevent misuse of judicial processes.
3. Efficient Adjudication:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle that direct evidence should be prioritized over scientific investigation unless absolutely necessary.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Invalidates Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16: Failure to Comply with Section 148A and ₹50 Lakh Pecuniary Threshold Under Finance Act, 2021 Renders Proceedings Invalid