IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2261 OF 2010 Between:- Gudumula Abbaiah …Petitioner A n d Smt.Mumtaz Begum and 2 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2261 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06-04-2010 in I.A.No.295 of 2009 in O.S.No.61 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents for cancellation of registered sale deed. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. The matter has reached the stage of trial. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.295 of 2009 requesting the Court to send the disputed sale deed dated 06-01-1992 to the finger print expert along with the thumb impression of the plaintiff taken in the open court. The respondents filed a counter opposing the application and contending that the disputed document was executed in 1992 and over a period of 20 years, there are chances of losing the original identity of the finger print and in the absence of any contemporaneous admitted documents, sending the specimen thumb impression taken in the open Court now for the purpose of comparison would not serve any purpose. The trial Court observed that the document does not contain the thumb impression of the plaintiff on each and every page. On the other hand, it was executed by G.Abbaiah by affixing his signature in Telugu with surname ‘G’ in English. The left hand thumb impression of the executant is found affixed on the rear side of the first page of the document presumably as part of the registration endorsement. It is also noted by the trial Court that the plaintiff is not disputing his signature, which is subscribed on every page of the disputed document. When the signature of the executant is not disputed, the question of sending the document to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of the signatures does not arise. Curiously, the plaintiff seeks the expert opinion regarding the thumb impression, which is affixed on the back of the first page as part of the registration endorsement. No reason is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application as to why the thumb impression on the backside of the first page should be sent to the handwriting expert. In the petition, it is prayed that the document be sent to the expert for comparison of the thumb impression. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, comparison of the signatures is sought to be required. The plaintiff does not appear to be sure as to what exactly he requires and for what purpose the document is to be sent to any expert. The trial Court has rightly held that there is no need to send the document to handwriting expert when the signatures of the executant are not disputed and neither there is any necessity to send the document to finger print expert for opinion regarding the thumb impression appearing on the back of the first page. Even otherwise, in the absence of any contemporaneous documents of the year 1992 containing the thumb impressions of the petitioner, sending the document for comparison along with the specimen thumb impression taken now in the open Court after a lapse of 20 years since the date of document may not serve any purpose. The petitioner has not made out any case for sending the document for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 4. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd February, 2011 Lrkm.