IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1985 OF 2009 BETWEEN M. A. Jabbar and five others. …PETITIONERS AND M.A. Aleem and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: MR. ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent: MR. KISHORE RAI The Court made the following: - ORDER: Petitioners herein filed a suit being O.S.No.291 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition with respect to matruka properties of their late father Abdul Hussain. The first plaintiff is the son of second wife and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are children of third wife. The defendants, who are respondents herein, arrayed as defendants 1 to 7, are the children of fourth wife. The suit has been contested by contending that late Abdul Hussain had left a registered will – Ex.B4 disposing of his properties and had later to the extent of house properties there was a Hiba by him in favour of the fourth wife – Smt. Banu Begum i.e. the mother of respondents 1 to 7 herein. It is also alleged that the said Hiba is recorded in the memorandum of gift – Ex.B5. Since the petitioners dispute the signature of late Abdul Hussain on Exs.B4 and B5, they filed application being I.A.No.764 of 2009 requesting the Court below to send Ex.B5 for examination by finger print expert to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, to be compared with admitted documents containing the signature of the deceased marked as Exs.A1 to A17. 2. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondents and under the impugned order the Court below, though has held that the application is maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LTD., HYDERABAD v. DIVYA FINANCIERS, GUNTUR [1] but the said application cannot be allowed in view of the admission of P.W.1 that the schedule property is owned by Smt. Banu Begum, the donee, under Ex.B5. The Court below, therefore, was of the opinion that in view of the said admission by P.W.1 it is unnecessary to send the document for comparison by expert. The said order is questioned in this revision. 3. Though the interlocutory matter is listed before this Court, at the request of both the learned counsel, the revision itself has been argued and is being disposed of by this order. 4. I have seen the deposition of P.W.1, particularly, containing the alleged admission in deposition dated 28.02.2008. While it is premature to make any comment on the statement of P.W.1 as to whether it amounts to admission or not, I am unable to appreciate the view of the trial Court. Firstly, whether the statement of P.W.1 is an admission, is a matter for appreciation during the final disposal of the suit by the Court below and secondly, if the said application is rejected on the ground of alleged admission, then nothing remains in the suit itself to be adjudicated and by the same analogy and reasoning of the Court below, the suit as well stands dismissed to that extent. The Court below, therefore, has committed serious error in rejecting the application on that ground in spite of maintainability of the application having been agreed to in the light of the decision referred to above. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that so far as admitted signatures of deceased Abdul Hussain are concerned, more authenticated document for that purpose would be his passport, which can be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with Ex.B5 so that there would be no iota of doubt about the signature of the deceased. Though the petitioners have sought to compare Ex.B5 with Exs.A1 to A17, which are letters of the deceased, which are admitted, I deem it more appropriate that along with Exs.A1 to A17 the original passport of the deceased may also be sent for comparison with Ex.B5. 6. The respondents’ counsel undertakes to file original passport before the Court below along with the Social Security Card issued by the US Government. Petitioners’ counsel submits that as soon as the said document is filed in the Court, he shall get instructions and the said document can be marked for the purpose of identification and for sending it to the handwriting expert. 7. In that event, the Court below shall request the Forensic Laboratory to compare the admitted and disputed signatures and send the report within four (4) weeks. Since the suit is of the year 2006 and as the trial is practically over, keeping in view the earlier directions of this Court regarding disposal of the suit, the Court below shall proceed with the suit and decide the same as soon as the report of the handwriting expert is received and in any case, the suit shall be disposed of preferably on or before 30.04.2011. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 1, 2010 Note: Communicate this order to Court below by 06.12.2010 (B/o) DSK [1] 2008 (4) ALD 339