THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1663 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the appellant in A.S.No.29 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Court, Warangal, aggrieved by the order, dated 02.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.1443 of 2009. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.679 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal. She filed the said suit for injunction simplicitor with regard to suit schedule property stating that she purchased the same from the second respondent, earlier owner, by way of Ex.B1 - agreement of sale, dated 09.05.1988 and that she filed Ex.B.1 coupled with the receipt for delivery of possession. The second respondent also executed Ex.A1 - registered gift deed in favour of her son – first respondent, including the schedule property in O.S.No.679 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. On the ground that Ex.B.1 was not proved, O.S.No.679 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, as against which, the petitioner filed A.S.No.29 of 2008 before the Principal District Court, Warangal. In the said appeal, she filed I.A.No.1443 of 2009 for sending Exs.B1 and A1 to the Finger Print Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison. By the impugned order, the said I.A. was rejected by the Court below. It is to be noticed that even according to the petitioner, the registered gift deed executed in favour of the first respondent contains the left thumb impression of the second respondent whereas the agreement of sale and the receipt, which show that the petitioner alleged to have purchased the suit schedule property from the second respondent, contain the right thumb impression of the second respondent. In view of the same, no purpose will be served to have an opinion of the Finger Print Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner in spite of denial of such execution of agreement of sale during the pendency of O.S.No.679 of 2004, has not taken steps for comparison and that the finding that Ex.B1 was not proved was recorded. Further, I.A.No.1443 of 2009 was filed belatedly without valid reasons. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th JUNE, 2010. kvni