JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri. S.M. Ibrahim, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, recommending that the revision against the order dated January 29, 1973 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalaun in suit No. 106 under Section 176, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have been represented through a counsel, but neither they nor their counsel appeared on the date the arguments were heard. 3. The facts may be briefly stated Ramadhar and Ram Gopal and filed a suit under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Genda Lal. The plaint bore the signature of Ram Gopal and the alleged thumb-impressions of Ramadhar. The defendant, Genda Lal moved an application before the trial court to the effect that plaintiff No. 1. Ramadhar was blind and that his thumb-impressions on the plaint as well as the Vakalatnama were forged and should be investigated by an expert. He prayed that the specimen thumb-impression of Ramadhar alongwith the thumb-impressions on the plaint and the Vakalatnama may be sent to the expert Ramadhar, however, personally appeared in the court and testified that the plaint and the Vakalatnama bore his thumb-impressions. The trial court held that under these circumstances it was not necessary to send a specimen to expert from court's side, and further added that the parties were free to adduce their respective evidence on this point whatever they liked. Genda Lal has come up in revision against this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application of the revisionist for expert's opinion, that the trial court has erred in not considering how a blind man could depose on oath about his thumb-impressions when the could not see, and that it was necessary in the interest of justice that his thumb-impressions should be sent to expert for examination. 5. A plaint is to be distinguished from evidence in a case. The plaint is merely the starting point for a suit. After the plaint has been filed, the defendants are given the opportunity to file their written statement. Thereafter issues are framed and then the parties get the opportunity to produce their evidence. 5. A plaint is to be distinguished from evidence in a case. The plaint is merely the starting point for a suit. After the plaint has been filed, the defendants are given the opportunity to file their written statement. Thereafter issues are framed and then the parties get the opportunity to produce their evidence. Now, it is on record that both the plaintiff's Ramadhar and Ramgopal are brothers being sons of Kalka Prasad and are also recorded as co-sirdars of the land in suit alongwith Prabhu Dayal, father of the defendant-revisionist Genda Lal. Thus, in a suit for division of holding bot of them have a common cause of action. It is undisputed that the plaint bears the signature of one of the plaintiffs Ram Gopal. As regards the question whether the plaint also bears the thumb-impressions of Ramadhar. Ramadhar has personally appeared before the Court and has affirmed that the thumb-impression are his. For the purposes of the verification of the plaint, this is more than sufficient. The law does not require that where a plaintiff affirms the signature or thumb-impression on the plaint to be his, it should be further verified by reference to the finger-print expert or the handwriting expert. As regards the question whether or not a blind person can affirm the thumb-impression to be his, the position is that the blind person can certainly testify from memory after the contents of the document containing his thumb-impression are read over to him. The blind person does not testify merely on the basis of seeing. He also testifies on the basis of his knowledge and memory. In the present case. Ramadhar has clearly stated in his testimony as follows: 'I and Ram Gopal have jointly filed the suit. I had come to Oral to file the suit and had put my thumb-impressions. Before putting the thumb-impressions I had heard the plaint which was read over to me. In the plaint, division of holding has been sought for'. This testimony is clear-cut and quite sufficient to show that Ramadhar, though blind, is fully remembering the facts and can testify about his thumb-impressions without actually seeing the document. 6. I agree with the learned Commissioner that the revision has no force. The revision is accordingly dismissed.