THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2848 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 13.04.2010 passed by Vii Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 504 of 2010 in O.S. No. 1140 of 2005, filed by the plaintiffs praying the Court to send Ex. B1-registered sale deed dated 11.08.1978 to an handwriting expert for comparison of the thumb impression thereon with that of the thumb impression on Ex. A8-registerd will deed dated 17.06.1995. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. The petitioners contend that late Sri. G. Yadaiah is an illiterate and a thumb impressionist, that he does not to read and write telugu, and as such, the question of his signing in telugu on Ex.B1-registered sale deed dated 11.08.1978, does not arise, and that the said document is a forged document, particularly when the said Yadaiah did not sell the property to any person, much less the respondent. It is their further contention that since the respondent disputed the claim made by the petitioners under Ex. A8-registered will deed dated 17.06.1995, it is but necessary that Ex.B1-registered sale deed 11.08.1978, based on which the respondent has laid his claim, should be sent to an handwriting expert for comparison of the thumb impression existing thereon with that of the thumb impression existing on Ex.A1-registered will deed dated 17.06.1995, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for the said purpose. Though the petitioners doubted the genuineness of Ex.B1-registered sale deed dated 11.08.1978, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioners did not adduce any evidence to disprove the same, and on the other hand, he examined the scribe and attestor of Ex.B1-registered sale deed. The petitioners, who are seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, have to prove their case, by adducing necessary evidence in support of his case. The petitioners, though are aware of the claim made by the respondent based on Ex. B1-registered sale deed dated 11.08.1978, as far back as on 22.12.2006 when he filed written statement, the fact remains, they did not take any steps to produce evidence to disprove the same. If according to the petitioners, Ex.B1-registered sale deed dated 11.08.1978 was a forged document, nothing prevented them from taking steps to file application of the present nature at an earlier point of time, but they did not do so, and much less, are said to have produced any evidence to disprove the same, and filed the present application praying to send Ex.B1-registered sale deed dated 11.08.1978 for comparison of the thumb impression of late Sri. G. Yadaiah with that of his thumb impression existing on Ex. A8-dated 17.06.1995, to an handwriting expert, after the evidence of both the side is closed and the matter is coming up for arguments. However, considering the fact that the petitioners filed the present at the fag end of the case at the stage of arguments, and inasmuch as expert opinion is only a piece of evidence and not conclusive, and that the Court, if necessary, considering the evidence adduced, by itself can compare the thumb impression on Ex. B1- registered sale deed with that of the thumb impression on Ex. A8-registered will deed, felt it not necessary to allow the present application, and accordingly dismissed it, and no exception can be taken thereto. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th August, 2010 KSR