IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2670 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Ch. Veera Swamy S/o. Narsaiah …. Petitioner AND Ch. Shekhar S/o. Narsaiah …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2670 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 02-04-2010 in I.A. No.73 of 2006 in O.S. No.80 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the thumb impression register of the Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad to the Finger Print Expert for comparison of the thumb impressions of the petitioner on the sale deed in question with that of the disputed thumb impression, was dismissed on the ground that the police, after getting the opinion from the expert in respect of the same thumb impression, closed the criminal case and that no useful purpose would be served. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the sale deed in question was not executed by him, that therefore, the disputed thumb impression has to be sent to the finger print expert for comparison along with his admitted thumb impression. 3. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that no reasons were given by the petitioner for sending the thumb impression again to the finger print expert and that the police have already collected the thumb impression of the petitioner in the open Court and sent the same to the finger print expert and obtained opinion and the police closed the case, in view of the fact that the disputed thumb impression and the admitted thumb impression are one and the same, as per the opinion of the finger print expert. 4. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the thumb impression of the petitioner again to the expert. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under law. No order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 09, 2010 KTL