THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.4263 OF 2009 05-12-2009 BETWEEN; P.Devasadanam and others ...Petitioners vs. N.Venkateswarlu ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.4263 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This revision is directed against the rejection of E.A.No.49 of 2006 in E.P.No.551 of 2004 in O.S.No.642 of 1988, by the order dated 16-07-2009 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. O.S.No.642 of 1988 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement dated 17-07-1977. The trial court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole decreed the suit by the judgment dated 10-10-1995. The revision petitioners preferred A.S.No.8 of 2002. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole dismissed the appeal on 19-08-2002. No second appeal was preferred by the revision petitioners and the judgment of the trial court stood affirmed in A.S.No.8 of 2002 and this determination has become final. It requires to be noticed that the revision petitioners failed to plead entitlement of the benefits of the Act VII/1977 (Debt Relief Act, 1977) as a defence in the suit. In A.S.No.8 of 2002 however this defence was asserted for the first time. The appellate court framed an issue “whether the appellants are entitled for the benefits of the Act VII/1977”. In Para.14 of the judgment, the appellate court clearly held that the defendants/revision petitioners herein are debarred from claiming entitlement to the benefits of Act VII/1977 as there was no plea in this respect either in the suit or even in the grounds of appeal in AS No.8 of 2002 and therefore no evidence could be adduced nor considered in determination of such claim. There is therefore a clear finding by the lower appellate court that the revision petitioners/defendants are not entitled to claim the benefits of Act VII/1977 in defence to the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. In rejecting E.A.No.771 of 2009 by the order impugned the court below rightly came to the conclusion that as the claim of benefits under the Act VII/1977 was urged and determined in A.S.No.8 of 2002 the revision petitioners are disentitled to urge the same plea in the E.P on application of the principles of res judicata. The court below also held that from the record in the E.P it is apparent that earlier the revision petitioners had filed E.A.No.1796 and 1797 of 2008 to summon the MRO, Chimakurthi to produce the documents and to give evidence in support of their claim to being entitled to the benefits of Act VII/1977. These applications were dismissed and the revision petitioners again filed E.A.No.771 and 772 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC and Order VII, Rule 14(3) CPC read with Sec.151 CPC respectively, seeking reopening of the matter and to receive documents by recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents in E.A.No.770 of 2009. In the considered view of this Court, the order of the Court below suffers from no error in the application of law or perversity in the exercise of discretion warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. There are no merits. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 5th DECEMBER 2009. TSNR