IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.44 OF 2010 Between: Pabbisetti Nagaraju Gupta .....PETITIONER AND Pabbisetti Sreerangaiah Setty (died) and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.44 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.12.2009, in I.A.No.306 of 2009 in O.S.No.23 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under XXVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the respondents/defendants to send the document Ex.B3 for comparison of the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner/plaintiff with his admitted signature, was allowed. 2. The suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for partition against respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.4 and 5/defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the purchasers of the property from respondent No.2/defendant No.2. The case of the respondents/defendants is that the petitioner/plaintiff executed Ex.B3 – Relinquishment Deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, relinquishing his rights in the joint family properties. The petitioner, who allegedly executed Ex.B3, denied his signature and thumb impression on Ex.B3. The petition is filed to send Ex.B3 along with the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioner for comparison by an expert and his opinion. The said petition was ordered. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that at belated stage the petition is filed; that the respondents who filed the petition in the trial Court have no locus standi to file such an application and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. The document – Ex.B3, Relinquishment Deed, is in dispute. The petitioner is disputing about his signature and thumb impression on Ex.B3, whereas it is the specific case of respondent No.2 that Ex.B3 was executed by the petitioner relinquishing his right in the joint family properties in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2 already sold his share to respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. Therefore, in such circumstances, respondent No.2 has no interest to prosecute further because he already sold his share. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the purchasers of the property from respondent No.2, are the affected parties. Therefore, they have rightly filed the petition to send the document – Ex.B3 to an expert for comparison of signature and thumb impression of the petitioner with his admitted signature. That petition was rightly allowed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition was filed at belated stage cannot be accepted. Since the evidence on behalf of the respondents/defendants is being adduced, it is the right stage where any one of the respondents/defendants can make a request to send the disputed document to an expert for comparison with the admitted signature. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 04, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.44 OF 2010 March 04, 2011