THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5145 of 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Vanga Nageswara Rao. …Petitioner and Palika Gopamma, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5145 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein ﬁled O.S.No.826 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.4 to 12 herein (defendants). They sought an injunction restraining from interfering with the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.0.97 cents. The petitioner herein got impleaded in the said suit as defendant No.10. His case is that he purchased ﬁve house sites in the lay out being LP No.149A and 153/85 of Vakalapudi under diﬀerent sale deeds and that the said plots form part of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner contends that the plaintiﬀs and the second defendant appointed one Aavulapati Nagi Reddy as power of attorney to sell the plots, and under the registered deeds of GPA dated 01.07.1992 and 19.10.1991 Nagi Reddy sold the property. The petitioner further alleged that plaintiﬀ Nos.1 to 3 joined as vendors in the sale deed executed in favour of one G.Raj Kumar and the first defendant. When the plaintiﬀs denied the sale deeds, the petitioner herein ﬁled I.A.No.503 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, praying the Court below to send Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 11.02.1970 under which the plaintiﬀs acquired the property as well as the two registered sale deeds dated 10.04.1992 to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions of the plaintiﬀs with those on these documents. By impugned order dated 26.08.2011, the trial Court dismissed the application observing that in the absence of contemporaneous signatures for the purpose of comparison, no purpose would be served in sending the disputed documents to the handwriting expert. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if there are no contemporaneous signatures of the plaintiﬀs with reference to 1992, when in 1991 and 1992 the GPA and sale deeds were executed, the signatures and thumb impressions can be compared. The submission cannot be accepted. While dismissing the application, the Court below considered this aspect with reference to the decision of this Court in Smt.Renu Devi Kedia v Smt.Seetha Devi[1] and came to the conclusion that in the absence of the contemporaneous signatures, no purpose would be served by sending the documents to handwriting expert. This conclusion is sound and cannot be said to suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.12.2011 vs [1] 2004 (6) ALT 429