HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1220 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 22.3.2011 passed in I.A.No. 220 of 2009 in O.S.No. 376 of 2007 on the file of Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. Petitioner herein is the defendant in the Suit viz., O.S.No. 376 of 2007. She filed I.A. under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the signature on the Will dated 29.6.2007, to the Finger Print Bureau, Hyderabad, to be compared with the admitted signature of deceased husband of the petitioner, Pavuluri Siva Ram Prasad and to give opinion, on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. That I.A was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court should have sent for the written statement in O.S.No. 108 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and also in the counter filed in ATC No. 9 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, which contain the admitted signatures of the deceased pavuluri Siva Rama Prasad so as to send the said documents to expert along with the disputed Will for opinion of Expert. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. For ready reference Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: “45. Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2[ or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3[ or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2[ or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts”. In this particular case, though the petitioner requested to send the Will dated 29.6.2007 along with admitted signatures to the Finger Print Bureau, Hyderabad, to be compared with the admitted signature of deceased husband of the petitioner, the petitioner neither filed any registered document nor made available the admitted signatures of deceased Pavuluri Siva Ram Prasad of contemporary period so as to send the Will dated 29.6.2007 to the hand writing expert. Therefore, in the absence of filing the admitted signatures of Pavuluri Siva Ram Prasad, the request of the petitioner to send the Will dated 29.6.2007 to the Finger Print Bureau, Hyderabad, to be compared with the admitted signature of deceased husband of the petitioner does not arise, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 15.04.2011 KA