1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.507 of 2009 in O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Deverakonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC.

2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2006 are: The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit being O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. It is the version of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and she being the daughter of Moguthala Narsimha is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties and whereas, the 1st defendant, who is her paternal uncle, is entitled for another half share. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. It is the version of the defendants that the plaintiff relinquished her share in the suit schedule properties under a document dated 22.05.1990 after receiving Rs.5,000/-. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The defendants got the relinquishment deed impounded and paid the necessary stamp duty and penalty on 07.09.2009 and marked the relinquishment deed on 14.09.2009. Both the parties closed their evidence. When the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.507 of 2009 to send Ex.B1 relinquishment deed alongwith admitted thumb impressions of the plaintiff to the Director for State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for opinion. The defendants filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff came up with the said application to delay the proceedings in the main suit, by order dated 15.12.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer para.10 of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:

"As per the guidelines given in the above Chapter-IX for trial of suits, the present matter falls under clause (7) i.e., any other matter or proceedings necessary "to be considered or taken prior to the trial of the suit". This step of sending Ex.B1 original ordinary relinquishment deed along with the admitted and taken thumb impression of the petitioner to the Director for State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad to know the age of the thumb impression and entire writing of the Ex.B1 document and whether plaintiff is the executant of Ex.B1, should have been taken by the petitioner earlier before commencement of trial in the main suit. But it is not done in the case. Therefore, it appears that only to delay the proceedings in main suit, which is very old and identified one, this petition is filed. There are no valid grounds to allow the petition."

3. Notice before admission came to ordered on 27.01.2010. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondents/defendants marked the relinquishment deed as Ex.B1 on 14.09.2009 after paying necessary stamp duty and penalty and till then there was no occasion for the petitioner/plaintiff to move an application for sending the document to the handwriting expert. A further submission has been made that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the thumb impression appearing on the document in dispute is very much essential for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the respondents/defendants have spe