IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE THIRD (3RD) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4427 of 2009 Between: Burra Bagirathava & others … Petitioners And: Burra Lasmaiah & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4427 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 04.08.2009 in IA No.156 of 2009 in OS No.7 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla, wherein, the said application ﬁled by the petitioners herein/D.1, 3 to 7 under section 151 CPC to sent Exs.B.19 and A.17 to the Hand-writing Expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the ﬁrst respondent/Plaintiﬀ. Perused the record. 3. The ﬁrst respondent herein ﬁled suit for partition of the plaint schedule property and for separate possession of half share therein. The petitioners ﬁled written statement, disputing the claim of plaintiﬀ for a share. They also pleaded earlier family settlement and contended that the schedule properties are no more joint family properties of the plaintiﬀ and the defendants. After settlement of necessary issues, the trial of the suit has commenced. During the course of trial, the petitioners herein ﬁled IA No.156 of 2009 seeking to send the documents Exs.B.19 and A.17 to the Hand-writing Expert. According to the defendants, in the partition that was eﬀected earlier, items 2 and 3 were allotted to the share of 3rd defendant’s husband, besides half share in item No.1 and the plaintiﬀ was allotted half share in Sy.Nos.965/A and 267 and subsequently, the plaintiﬀ has sold his half share in the said survey numbers to 3rd defendant’s husband under the documents which were marked as Exs.B.19 and A.17. It is further stated that during the course of cross- examination when the plaintiﬀ was confronted with the same, he denied the execution of the said documents. The ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled a counter, contending that the said documents are forged and the application ﬁled at a belated stage is also not maintainable. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application mainly on the ground that it was ﬁled at a highly belated stage when the trial has reached fag end. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants ﬁled the present revision. 5. Out of the two documents, Ex.A.17 is only a certiﬁed copy of an un-registered simple sale deed dated 15.06.1979 said to have been executed by the plaintiﬀ for an extent of 29 guntas in Sy.No.267 in favour of the husband of 3rd defendant. The question of sending the certiﬁed copy of the document to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of thumb impression does not simply arise. 6. The other document Ex.B.19 is another unregistered simple sale deed dated 10.12.1975 also allegedly executed by the plaintiﬀ in favour of the husband of the 3rd defendant, in which he said to have sold Ac.2.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.965/A. The plaintiﬀ is said to have aﬃxed his thumb impression on the said document Ex.B.19. The trial court also noted that the genuineness of the said document is disputed by the plaintiﬀ, but however, observed that the defendants have not taken any steps immediately. It is to be noted that Ex.B.19 was marked in the evidence of the defendants. Subsequently, it is stated that the plaintiﬀ was confronted with the said document Ex.B.19 on 08.06.2009 and on that day, he denied the genuineness of the said document. The present application was ﬁled eight days later on 16.06.2009. It cannot therefore be said that there was any undue delay in ﬁling the application after the denial of the document by the plaintiﬀ when he is confronted with the same in the cross-examination. 7. As the matter relates to valuable rights in the immovable properties and the speciﬁc contention of the defendants from the beginning is that the plaintiﬀ has sold away his share in favour of 3rd defendant’s husband under the disputed document and the plaintiﬀ has denied the genuineness of the said document alleging that the same is forged, it is considered just and proper to aﬀord an opportunity to the petitioners to have the said document examined by the Finger Print Expert. 8 . In the circumstances, the impugned order is held liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside insofar as it relates to the document Ex.B.19 and the same is conﬁrmed insofar as the document Ex.A.17 is concerned. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.12.2011 bss