THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3113 OF 2011 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN: YANAMALA TIRUMALA REDDY AND ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS AND DANGETI NAGESWARA RAO .. RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3113 OF 2011 O R D E R : This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.02.2011 rejecting the I.A.No.1351 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.169 of 2000, an application under Or.26 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC, for examination and report of the thumb impressions of Koyya Butchemma on Ex.A2 - an unregistered Will, by an expert, comparing the thumb impressions of Koyya Butchemma on Ex.B.1- registered will dated 30.09.83, in substantiation of the defence in the suit, that Ex.A2-unregistered Will was not executed by Koyya Butchemma. O.S.No.169 of 2000 is by the respondents for a bare injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The claim of the plaintiff is founded on Ex.A2- unregistered will purportedly executed by Koyya Butchemma. In the written statement the revision petitioners claim that it is a forged document and that they have title to the property on the basis of Ex.B.1- registered will dated 30.09.83 also purportedly executed by Koyya Butchemma. The court below, while rejecting the application, recorded the reasons that while issues were framed in the suit on 18.4.2002 the suit was posted for trial to 25.10.2002 and the matter was adjourned time to time, since the plaintiff was not ready. Eventually, on 16.6.2008 the chief affidavit of P.W.1 was filed and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 19.03.2009 and the matter was posted for defence evidence to 20.4.2009. Thereafter, eight adjournments were granted on payment of costs and the chief affidavit of D.W.1 was eventually filed on 8.7.2009. Thereafter, after DW.3 was cross- examined, the revision petitioners/defendants filed the present application to send Ex.A2 for expert opinion. The court below also recorded that the revision petitioners did not file any admitted document to be sent along with Ex.A2-Will to the expert for comparison of the admitted thumb impressions. The court therefore found no merit in the application. The court below held that since both the parties already adduced sufficient evidence in support of their respective contentions, the application is belated and there are no merits. Accordingly the application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment in VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA v. VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO & ANOTHER[1] to contend that since no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if Ex.A2- unregistered Will is sent to the forensic expert for comparison of the thumb impression, the court below ought to have sent the document by allowing the application and has erred exercising discretion. I see no error in exercise of discretion by the court below. Prejudice that may be caused to the parties is not the exclusive criteria. The suit, as already noticed is for bare injunction. While prima facie case, which includes title is one relevant consideration, possession on the date of the suit is of critical importance, for the relief of permanent injunction. It is possession as on the date of the suit and the other criterion, of balance of convenience, which is determinative for granting relief in a suit for injunction. At any event, revision petitioners/ defendants were aware that the claim of the respondent/ plaintiff for grant of injunction is on the basis of title claimed on the foundation of Ex.A2-unregistered will executed by Koyya Butchemma. It was their defence that the Will is not genuine. In the circumstances, they should have taken steps at the earliest point of time to seek sending of the disputed Will for forensic examination. Nine years after the institution of the suit and after the examination of DW.3 is also completed and the trial is at an advanced stage, the revision petitioners filed the application. In the circumstances, the order of the court below declining to grant relief in exercise of its discretion warrants no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the revision and it is dismissed at the admission stage. Dt: 02-09-2011. ( GODA RAGHURAM, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3113 OF 2011 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. tnb [1] 2009(1) ALD 265