HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.175 OF 2011 DATE:04-02-2011 BETWEEN B.Suryavathi …Petitioner AND V.Bramarambha & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.175 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed by the first defendant to revise dismissal order in I.A.No.435 of 2010 in O.S.No.2053 of 2003, dated 24.12.2010 passed by VI Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. I have gone through the material available on record. It is not in dispute that I.A.No.1134 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner-first defendant for sending the disputed thumb impressions on Ex.A.1 and B.5 in the suit with admitted thumb impressions of the testatrix-K.Chinnayamma available with the Syndicate Bank i.e. Ex.B.9. The said I.A. was allowed, but however, only Ex.A.1- unregistered Will was sent to the handwriting expert to compare with the admitted signatures on Ex.B.9 ignoring Ex.B.5. The handwriting expert submitted his report on 12.10.2010 stating that the disputed thumb impressions of testatrix-Karri Chinnayamma marked as ‘D1’ on the front side of 1st sheet (laminated) and ‘D2’ on the front side of 2nd sheet (laminated) of unregistered Will (Ex.A.1), dated 17.10.2002 are smudged, not clear and wanting in clear ridge characteristics required for the purpose of establishing identity and therefore, the thumb impressions marked as ‘D1’ and ‘D2’ are unfit for comparison. By mistake, the Court has not sent Ex.B.5 for comparison with Ex.A.9 (Ex.B.9) and in the absence of any finding on Ex.B.9 stating that thumb impressions are smudged and not clear, the lower Court fell in error in coming to the conclusion that since the report of the fingerprints expert is that Ex.B.9 thumb impressions are smudged and not clear, there is no need to send Ex.B.5 for comparison. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no finding that Ex.B.9-thumb impressions are smudged and not clear as per the report. Under those circumstances, the impugned order passed by the lower Court dismissing I.A.No.435 of 2010 suffers from illegality since I.A.No.1134 of 2008 was already allowed for sending Exs.A.1 and B.5 for comparison of thumb impressions with the admitted thumb impressions covered by Ex.B.9. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to send Ex.B.5 for comparison with the thumb impressions covered by Ex.B.9 to the handwriting expert and invite his opinion and proceed with the suit. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 04, 2011 Tsr.