THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5705 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners, represented by their mother, filed O.S.No.2 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against their father, the 2nd respondent, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The 1st respondent got himself impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. The trial of the suit is in progress. The 1st respondent pleaded that the 2nd respondent sold an item of suit schedule property to him, under a document, marked as Ex.B-4. The 2nd respondent appears to have denied the execution thereof. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.470 of 2008 under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to collect the thumb impressions of the mother of the petitioners, by name, Venkatamma; the 2nd respondent, Kanakaiah, and to send the same to the forensic science laboratory, for comparison with the signatures, or writings on Exs.B-4 and B-28. It was urged that B-28 is an application filed by Venkatamma and Kanakaiah, before the Executive Officer of a Temple, for performance of their marriage, and the signatures/thumb impressions thereon, become relevant for comparison. The petitioners opposed the application. Through its order dated 24-11-2008, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the sole basis for the 1st respondent, pleaded in the suit, was a purchase, said to have been made under Ex.B-4, and the signature, or thumb impression of the mother of the petitioners is totally irrelevant and unconnected with that. He submits that the intention of the 1st respondent is only to malign and harass the petitioners and their mother. Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the necessity to insist on sending Ex.B-28 arose, because of the fact that it contains the signature of the 2nd respondent. He also submits that there is a serious dispute as to the identity of the mother of the petitioners, as wife of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is an alien to the family, comprising of the petitioners and the 1st respondent. In the application filed by him, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., he appears to have pleaded that he purchased an item of property. In addition to that, he states that his sister was married to the 2nd respondent. Though the alleged purchase of an item of property may have clothed him with a right to get impleaded in the suit, the other fact pleaded by him is totally irrelevant. Without stopping at that, the 1st respondent wanted to create doubt on the very matrimonial status of the mother of the petitioners. 2nd respondent did not dispute his marriage with the mother of the petitioners. The 1st respondent has absolutely no say in the matter. Therefore, whatever may have been the relevance to send Ex.B-4, for comparison with the thumb impression, or signature of the 2nd respondent, there cannot be any justification, either for sending Ex.B-28, much less to insist on the signature, or thumb impression of the mother of the petitioners. Hence, the C.R.P., is partly allowed, setting aside the order under revision, to the extent it directed sending of Ex.B-28, and taking of thumb impression of the mother of the petitioners. The order shall be confined only to the one, of sending Ex.B-4, for comparison of the thumb impression, or signatures of the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.26-08-2009. KO