THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.433 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 13.11.2009 in I.A.No.1114 of 2008 in O.S.No.150 of 2006 passed by the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Pottisreeramulu Nellore District, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner herein, defendant No.2 in the suit, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying to send the documents i.e., Ex.B1-registered mortgage deed, dated 27.03.1967, and registered Will, dated 08.06.1995, both executed by Veluru Nagarathnamma, to the Finger Print Expert for obtaining his opinion regarding the genuineness of thumb impressions found in the said Will, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein laid the suit O.S.No.150 of 2006 before the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Pottisreeramulu Nellore District, for partition of plaint schedule property. Petitioner-defendant No.2 filed written statement stating that the property in question is his own property, having obtained the same under a registered Will dated 08.06.1995 executed by his mother Veluru Nagarathnamma and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to have share in that property. After the trial has commenced and P.W.1 was examined, the petitioner-2nd defendant filed the present petition in I.A.No.1114 of 2008, stating that since the 2nd plaintiff, examined as P.W.1, during the course of evidence, has admitted about the execution of registered mortgage deed dated 27.03.1967 by their mother Nagarathnamma, the genuineness of the registered Will dated 08.06.1995, which was also executed by their mother, can be determined, if the said mortgage deed and the disputed Will are sent to the Finger Print Expert and, therefore, sought to send both the documents i.e., Ex.B1, the registered mortgage deed dated 27.03.1967, and registered Will dated 08.06.1995 to the Finger Print Expert for obtaining his opinion regarding the genuineness of thumb impressions found in the said Will. Respondents-plaintiffs resisted the petition by filing counter denying the execution of the registered Will dated 08.06.1995, disputing Ex.B1-mortgage deed, dated 27.03.1967, and stating that the 2nd plaintiff never admitted about mortgage deed- Ex.B1, that the 2nd plaintiff was a minor as on the date of execution of Ex.B1 and that the said Nagarathnamma was a signatory. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed the petition by order dated 13.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is preferred by the 2nd defendant. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the Court below, having gone through the evidence of the 2nd plaintiff in its full spirit, held that there is no clear admission from the side of the 2nd plaintiff, examined as P.W.1, about the mortgage deed, and also has taken note of the settled position of law in Chikkam Koteswara Rao v. Chikkam Subbarao and other (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1542), relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents therein, as per which admissions must be clear in their meaning and there should be no doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission. This apart, the scribe and attestors of the said Will are yet not examined, and it is only after their examination, the petitioner, if necessary, may file an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the present application cannot be entertained at this stage. Even the court below has opined that the petitioner can as well adduce evidence of direct witnesses who were present at the time of execution of the said Will and that he can also file any other admitted document for getting specimen thumb impressions of Nagarathnamma, and accordingly, while passing the impugned order, dismissing the present I.A., it made an observation that the petitioner can as well adduce direct evidence regarding execution of the disputed Will. Thus, I am of the opinion that the court below has not committed any error in dismissing the present I.A., calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 16th April, 2010 v v