THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3648 of 2008 Date: 30.9.2010 Between: Konda Chandramma ………..Plaintiff And Pagadoju Venkamma. …….Defendant. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3648 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 2.6.2008 passed on the memo filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant had put her thumb impression on Ex.A1-sale deed, dated 28.11.1996, but subsequently failed to appear before the Sub Registrar. The defendant denied that she had affixed her thumb impression on Ex.A1. The petitioner filed I.A.No.560 of 2006 praying for the following reliefs: (1) To send the disputed thumb impressions on Ex.A1, (2) Admitted thumb impression on Ex.A-10 i.e. Regd Sale Deed executed by respondent-defendant in favour of P.W.4 vide document No.2 of 1997, dated 28-11-1996 of S.R.O Choutupppal, (3) Specimen Thumb Impression of respondent-defendant obtained by the Hon'ble Court in the open Court and (4) Thumb impression is on deposition of D.W.1. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The disputed thumb impressions on Ex.A1 i.e., on the first sheet are marked as Ex.D1, second sheet as Ex.D2, third sheet as Ex.D3, fourth sheet as Ex.D4, fifth sheet as Ex.D5 and sixth sheet as Ex.D6, and Exs.D7 to D9 are the thumb marks marked on the plan enclosed to Ex.A1. The Handwriting Expert found that thumb marks under Exs.D1, D3 to D9 are unfit for comparison. Ex.D2 was compared with the specimen thumb marks under S1 and S2 obtained in open Court and it was found that Ex.D2 is not identical with Ex.S1 and it could not be compared as specimen thumb impression as the portion, which is available on it i.e the portion of the thumb impression marked as D2 was not available in the specimen left thumb impression marked as Ex.S2. Accordingly, the expert gave his opinion. Then, the petitioner filed a memo requesting to send Ex.A10. The lower Court observing that the sending of Ex.A1 and Ex.A10 is nothing but an unnecessary exercise and that the suit is of the year 1999, passed the impugned orders. The only point that arises for consideration is whether Ex.A.10 should be sent to handwriting expert for comparison with Ex.D2. Point: As seen from the record, it is clear that the petitioner had requested to send Ex.A.10 and other documents to the hand writing expert and the said application i.e I.A.No.560 of 2006 was allowed. Admittedly, Ex.A.10 was not sent to the Handwriting Expert and it appears to be a clerical mistake. In the above circumstances, I feel that it was obligatory on the part of the lower Court to send Ex.A10 along with other documents and when a request was made by the plaintiff to send the same for comparison, the lower Court ought to have considered the same. During the trial, the parities should be allowed to explore all the possibilities of adducing the evidence and the doors should not be closed at the stage of trial. If the parties are not allowed to adduce their evidence, then prejudice may be caused to them, and sometimes it may result in injustice. In the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The lower Court is directed to send Exs.A1 and A.10 to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date: 30-09-2010 mrb