HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.R.P. No. 2893 of 2010 O R D E R: Aggrieved by the order dated 22-06-2010 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in IA No. 207 of 2010 in OS No. 499 of 2007 refusing to send the disputed wills Exs.B1 and B10 to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of testator, V.V.Suibbaiah, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision. 2. The plaintiff, namely Sri Seetharamanjaneya Devasthanam Abhivrudhi Nirvahana Sangham rep. by Secretary filed the suit in the lower Court for declaration of title of temple/deity for the plaint schedule property on the basis of registered will dated 29.11.1974 said to have been executed by late Valluru Venkata Subbaiah, bequeathing the schedule property in favour of the temple. The 1st defendant wife and the 2nd defendant is daughter of the testator. The defendants putforward another will dated 19.12.1984 bequeathing the schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant, who executed gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. 3. Previously, the defendants filed IA No.350 of 1999 in the lower court for sending the disputed documents Exs.B1 and B10 to an expert for comparison of thumb impressions as well as signatures of the testator contained in those documents. By order dated 28.8.2009 the lower court ordered the said petition filed by the defendants to send Exs.B1 and B10 not only to State Government handwriting expert but also State Government Finger Print Expert for opinion. But, the defendants have chosen to take steps thereafter to send the disputed documents to finger print expert only to obtain opinion. It is stated by the respondents’ counsel that finger print expert sent report after comparison to the effect that the finger prints in those documents are genuine. Since the defendants did not take steps with regard to comparison of signatures of the testator in the disputed documents, now the plaintiff filed the present petition in the lower court for sending the disputed documents to the handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of the testator. The disputed documents contained not only thumb impressions but also signatures of the executant therein. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even to a naked eye one can find out discrepant handwriting in the signatures of the testator in the disputed documents. The lower court rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that in view of the fact that finger print expert’s opinion already obtained, the present petition is not necessary and that it will consume lot of expenses and valuable time of the court. 4. The suit filed in the lower court is of the year 2007 for deciding truth and genuineness of two wills put forward by the respective parties. Sending the disputed documents to expert is one mode of proof of those documents. Having taken steps to send disputed documents to fingerprint expert as well as hand writing expert and having obtained order from the lower court for sending the disputed documents to both the experts, ultimately the defendants for their own reasons finally, paid expenses for sending the documents to fingerprint expert only and did not pay expenses for sending the documents to handwriting expert also. The fact that the lower court allowed IA No. 350 of 2009 previously, denotes that there is necessity of sending the documents not only to finger print expert but also to handwriting expert. When part of the previous order in IA No. 350 of 2009 was not complied with by the defendants, now the plaintiff has come forward with the present petition; and in my opinion, this petition is only to implement that part of the order in IA No. 350 of 2009 which was not complied with by the defendants. Having regard to all these circumstances of the case, the lower court should have given opportunity to the plaintiff to send the disputed documents to handwriting expert also for comparison of signatures and for opinion. Thus, the lower court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and it has got a bearing on final decision in the suit. The impugned order passed by the lower court is erroneous and is not sustainable. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower court and directing the lower court to send the disputed documents to handwriting expert for opinion. No costs. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 10-12-2010 Mjl/*