THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3829 OF 2011 DATED SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN G.Satyanarayana … Petitioner and K.Ganesh and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3829 OF 2011 O R D E R The first defendant in O.S.No.204 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, filed an application therein in I.A.No.208 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send his thumb impressions obtained in open Court along with his signatures in the LIC proposal form to the named Forensic expert along with the disputed thumb impressions and signatures in the suit documents, Exs.A3 and A4, for the purpose of comparison and report. The trial Court dismissed the said application by its order dated 22.07.2011. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The suit O.S.No.204 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 05.04.2005 (Ex.A.3) said to have been executed by the first defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants 2 to 26 came to be impleaded in the suit as they claimed to be subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property, but are however shown to be not necessary parties to the present proceedings. The first defendant filed his written statement and additional written statement in the suit, wherein he admitted execution of Ex.A.3 suit agreement of sale and also the receipt dated 05.04.2005 (Ex.A.4) evidencing payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part sale consideration. He however denied execution of receipt dated 16.05.2005 (Ex.A.9) which spoke of payment of a further sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards the sale consideration. He also denied the signature on the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.A.6) filed in proof of his having received the plaintiff’s legal notice. Pursuant to the order secured by the first defendant in I.A.No.490 of 2005 in the suit, the disputed documents (Exs.A.6 and A.9) were sent to the Finger Print Bureau (CID), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, along with the admitted documents, Exs.A3 and A4, for verification and opinion. It appears that the expert asked for contemporaneous signatures of the first defendant dating back to the year 2005 for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures. Thereupon, the first defendant filed I.A.No.991 of 2006 in the suit to call for the LIC policy proposal form containing his signatures submitted in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad, in the year 2005 for submission to the handwriting expert. The said I.A. was ordered on 27.10.2006. However, before the LIC proposal form could be obtained and forwarded to the handwriting expert, the report dated 12.10.2007 was forwarded by the Director, Finger Print Bureau (CID), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the trial Court under letter dated 15.10.2007. The report disclosed that the thumb impression in the admitted Ex.A.4 receipt was smudged and was therefore found unfit. However, comparing the thumb impressions in Ex.A.3, agreement of sale, with the disputed thumb impression in Ex.A.9 receipt, the finger print expert opined that they were identical. The trial commenced in the suit on 01.09.2010 and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 on the said date and again on 19.10.2010. He was cross-examined by the first defendant on 26.10.2010 and the matter was adjourned for his further cross-examination. At that stage, on 18.03.2011, the subject application came to be filed. There is no explanation forthcoming from the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. as to why the first defendant did not seek the relief sought therein earlier though the finger print expert’s report submitted as long as back as on 15.10.2007 was on file. Further, unless the said report is shown to be incorrect on evidence, there would be no occasion for the first defendant to once again seek comparison of his thumb impression with that in the disputed document through another agency. It is no doubt true that the trial Court was under a mistaken impression that the LIC proposal form called for under the order dated 27.10.2006 in I.A.No.991 of 2006 in O.S.No.204 of 2005 was also examined by the finger print expert. The covering letter dated 15.10.2007 addressed by the Director, Finger Print Bureau (CID), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, clearly evidences that the said LIC proposal form was not forwarded to the finger print expert for scrutiny. However, the said proposal form was sought only for the purpose of comparison of signatures. In so far as the thumb impressions are concerned, it had no role to play and the finger print expert’s report dated 12.10.2007 holds the field at the moment. At this stage, the first defendant is not entitled to seek fresh examination of thumb impressions, admitted and disputed, through a new agency. The Court below therefore did not commit any error in holding so and dismissing his I.A. filed for the said purpose. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______SEPTEMBER, 2011 PGS