IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.755 OF 2010 Between: Maguluri Kameswaramma …Petitioner A n d Bhimanandham Rukminamma and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.755 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.02.2010 in I.A.No.429 of 2007 in O.S.No.4 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner/D-2 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting the Court to send the unregistered Will dated 25.05.2007 filed along with the additional written statement of petitioner/D-2 to the finger print expert for comparison of the LTI of D-1 therein along with the admitted thumb impressions of the 1st defendant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into three equal shares and for separate possession one such share. It is stated that the 1st defendant died subsequent to filing of the suit. According to the petitioner/D-2, the 1st defendant executed an unregistered Will dated 25.05.2007 in her favour and under the said Will. The petitioner/D-2, being the legatee, is the legal representative of the deceased/D-1. The 1st respondent/ plaintiff is disputing the genuineness of the Will. The petitioner/D-2, therefore, filed I.A.No.429 of 2007 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting the Court to send the disputed unregistered Will dated 25.05.2007 to the finger print expert for comparison and opinion. 4. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff is that neither in the petition nor in the affidavit has the petitioner/D-2 disclosed the description of the documents, which according to him constitute the admitted documents. 5. Inasmuch as the genuineness of the Will propounded by petitioner/D-2 is disputed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, there cannot be any tenable objection to send the said document to the finger print expert as prayed for. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff the petitioner/D-2 ought to have disclosed the description of the admitted documents, which according to him are to be sent to the finger print expert for the purpose of comparison and the 1st respondent/plaintiff is certainly entitled to have notice of the same. 6. In the circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order and consequently allowing the application I.A.No.429 of 2007, the petitioner/D-2 is directed to disclose the description of the documents, which according to him contain the admitted or proved LTI’s of deceased/D-1 and which are required to be sent to the finger print expert and the 1st respondent/plaintiff be given notice of the same for considering their objections, if any, before sending them to the expert for the purpose of comparison. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th September, 2011 Lrkm.