THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3632 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing I.A.No.946 of 2011 in O.S.No.1130 of 2008 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A.1 in O.S.No.1300 of 2008 for comparison of the thumb impressions therein with his admitted thumb impressions. O.S.No.1130 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner herein for declaration that the non-possessory agreement of sale-cum-GPA registered as document No.423/07, dated 12.12.2007, is null and void, whereas O.S.No.1300 of 2008 is filed by one Masunuri Bharat Kumar against the petitioner herein and his father (second respondent herein) for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Both the suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.1300 of 2008. After the closure of the evidence, and when the matters were coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.326 of 2011 in O.S.No.1130 of 2008 for amendment of the plaint and the same was dismissed on 07.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present Interlocutory Application to send Ex.A.1 marked in O.S.No.1300 of 2008 to the expert for the purpose of comparison of thumb impressions on the said document with his admitted thumb impressions, contending that the thumb impression by the side of the photograph in the said document does not belong to him and that he has no knowledge with regard to the said document. The Court below, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, dismissed the said I.A holding that the petitioner is not the executant of Ex.A.1 and Y.Sambireddy, the father of the petitioner herein, is the executant and therefore the thumb impressions, if any, should be that of the agent but not that of the petitioner i.e., principal. Hence, this revision. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in the written statement filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1300 of 2008, the petitioner herein has not disputed about the thumb impression on Ex.A.1 sale deed since he has executed the same in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1300 of 2008 as a General Power of Attorney Holder. On perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.1300 of 2008, the plea taken by the petitioner at para 6 appears to be that document Nos.423 of 2007 and 2407 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Nunna are created by his father and the first respondent herein and that the plaintiff therein colluded with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule property by fraud and misrepresentation behind his back. But, nowhere the petitioner has specifically disputed about the thumb impressions on Ex.A.1-sale deed. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot file the above Interlocutory Application in the present suit for sending the document marked in another suit i.e., O.S.No.1300 of 2008 to the expert for comparison. Hence, the lower Court rightly dismissed the I.A and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file such application in O.S.No.1300 of 2008 for sending the document to the expert for comparison. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 09.09.2011 Note: Furnish CC by Monday B/o va