THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4472 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing I.A.No.1262 of 2011 in O.S.No.1300 of 2008 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) to send Ex.A.1 to the Expert for comparison of the thumb impressions therein with his admitted thumb impressions. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the present suit i.e., O.S.No.1300 of 2008, filed O.S.No.1130 of 2008 against the father of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1300 of 2008. When both the suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in the present suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.946 of 2011 in O.S.No.1130 of 2008 to send Ex.A.1- sale deed dated 27.10.2008 to the Expert for comparison of thumb impressions. On dismissal of the said I.A, the petitioner carried the matter to this Court in C.R.P.No.3632 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 09.09.2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to file such application in O.S.No.1300 of 2008. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed the impugned I.A.No.1262 of 2011 in O.S.No.1300 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Act to send Ex.A.1 to the Expert for the purpose of comparison of the disputed thumb impression by the side of the photograph affixed with Ex.A.1 with the admitted thumb impression of the petitioner. The respondent/plaintiff filed contested the application by filing counter affidavit stating that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was closed in the year 2010; that Ex.A.1 was executed by the General Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner; that since from the beginning the petitioner is disputing Ex.A.1, and therefore, there is no necessity to send the said document to the Expert; that the evidence of all the witnesses was already on record and that the impugned I.A is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The Court below, after hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent herein filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the petitioner herein and his father-second defendant. In the written statement filed in the present suit, the defence taken by the petitioner is that originally the suit schedule property was purchased by the grandfather of the second defendant and the same was bequeathed to the second defendant; that the second defendant has friendship with the father of the plaintiff; that the second defendant and the plaintiff hatched up a plan stating that the second defendant introduced a financier, as the first defendant/petitioner herein was in dire necessity of amount to send his sister Vanajakshi to U.S for higher studies; that the second defendant represented that the plaintiff asked to execute a registered mortgage deed for advancing the loan amount, and believing the said words, on 12.12.2007 the petitioner went to the Sub Registrar Office and executed a document and that thereafter, he came to know that the said document is not at all a mortgage deed and the same is a non-possessory sale agreement-cum-GPA. Hence, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1130 of 2008 for declaration that the non- possessory sale agreement cum GPA document dated 12.12.2007 is null and void and for permanent injunction. Ex.A.1 sale deed was executed by Yerakareddy Sambi Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner herein as a General Power of Attorney Holder. Hence, the petitioner is not the executant of Ex.A.1 and Sambi Reddy is the executant. Further, the affidavit filed in support of the I.A also discloses that in Ex.A.1- registered sale deed dated 27.10.2008, his photograph was affixed and by the side of the said photograph, his finger print alleged to have obtained; that the thumb impression adjacent to his photograph does not belong to him and he has no knowledge with regard to the creation of the alleged sale deed and that the same was fabricated and forged by the plaintiff. When a suggestion was put to P.W.1, he categorically deposed that the photograph of D.1-the petitioner herein was not taken by the Sub Registrar and thumb impressions were also not taken by the Sub Registrar, which clearly shows that thumb impression of the petitioner was not taken by the Sub Registrar in his Office. In view of the same, the presence of the petitioner before the Sub Registrar does not arise and therefore, sending Ex.A.1 to the Expert for comparison does not arise. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 21.10.2011 va