Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy, S/o. Late C.Konda Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Challa Narasamma, W/o. Subba Rayudu – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.3196 And 3197 Of 2025
Decided On : 10-07-2026
For The Petitioner: K Narsi Reddy
For The Respondent: Vivekananda Virupaksha
An unmarked document can be referred to a scientific expert for thumb impression comparison as fingerprint identification is an exact science, and such a step helps the court resolve disputes efficiently without waiting for the document to be formally marked as an exhibit.
Headnote:The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991. The defendants denied the execution of the agreement, alleging forgery. The plaintiffs filed applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to obtain the thumb impression of the first defendant for expert comparison. The trial court dismissed the applications, reasoning that the issue of limitation was a preliminary matter and the document had not yet been marked as an exhibit. The court considered whether a document that has not been marked as an exhibit can be sent to an expert for comparison of thumb impressions. The court reasoned that fingerprint identification is an "exact science" and that there is no legal bar under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure or other laws preventing the referral of an unmarked document to an expert to avoid unnecessary trial delays, distinguishing this from cases involving handwriting analysis. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The orders dated 24.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024 are set aside, and the applications are allowed.
ORDER :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above two revisions against two separate orders dated 24.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty.
2. Since the issues involved in the two revisions are inter-related, arising out of the same suit in two interlocutory applications, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the two revisions by a common order.
3. The plaintiffs initially filed suit O.S.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 executed by the 1st defendant and the deceased 2nd defendant, in favour of late Kondareddy, father of plaintiffs 1 & 2 and father-in-law of 3rd plaintiff.
4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement and contended that the alleged signatures of the executants on the alleged agreement are forged and the agreement is fabricated. Thereafter, the suit, O.S.No.192 of 2015, was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, to be tried along with O.S.No.6 of 2015, filed by the defendants, seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession.
5. The plaintiffs got the suit agreement impounded with the Court by paying the requisite stamp duty and penalty. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.402 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC, to direct the 1st defendant to appear and give a thumb impression and to send the same to the expert to compare the thumb with the thumb on the agreement of sale and to direct the other defendant, i.e., legal heirs of 2nd defendant to produce the documents containing the admitted signatures of 2nd defendant and to send the same to the handwriting expert.
6. I.A.No.403 of 2024 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) r/w Section 151of CPC, to send the agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 to the handwriting expert for examining of left-hand thumb impression of 1st defendant and signature of deceased 2nd defendant, with the admitted thumb impression of 1st defendant and admitted signature of 2nd defendant.
7. The respondents filed separate counters and opposed the applications. It was contended that the 1st defendant gave evidence in the connected suit O.S.No.6 of 2015, and if the Court concludes that the thumb impression of the 1st defendant is required for comparison, the said thumb impression can be used.
8. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the defendants 1 and 2 executed an agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 in favour of late Kondareddy and put the said Kondareddy in possession of the property. The said Kondareddy cultivated the land, and after his demise, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the land. The revenue authorities updated the records of rights. In view of the denial in the written statement regarding the very execution of the document by defendants 1 and 2, the aforementioned I.As were filed. He would further submit that though two reliefs were sought in the I.As, however, the plaintiff confined the relief and requested the Court to summon the 1st defendant and give the thumb impression in the Court and to send the same to the expert for comparison.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 is not yet marked and hence, sending the document to the expert to ascertain the thumb impression does not arise and is premature. Since the trial Court exercised the discretion vested with it, the impugned orders do not call for any interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:
a) Bande Siva Shankara Sri
