Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed against the order dated 25.10.2004, passed in I.A.No.210/2004 in O.S.No.139/2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur, Salem District.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated Revision Petition filed against the order dated 25.10.2004, passed in I.A.No.210/2004 in O.S.No.139/2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur, Salem District. 2. The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners herein. 3. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.139/2001, on the file of the sub court, Mettur for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 9.6.2000 and also for consequential injunction. 4. Pending suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.210/2004 under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act praying to order issue of summons to the handwriting and fingerprint expert to take photos of the original and disputed thumb impressions and signatures found in the sale agreement dated 9.6.2000 to compare the same and to give her (expert) opinion. The trial court by order dated 25.10.2004 dismissed the I.A.No.210/2004 and aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed by them in support of their submissions. 6. It is the case of the revision petitioners that they never executed any sale agreement and the sale agreement dated 9.6.2000 was created by the respondent/plaintiff and to that effect they have filed written statement and additional written statement. As the respondent/plaintiff has not come forward to prove the alleged sale agreement, they have filed I.A.No.210/2004 to prove that the sale agreement dated 9.6.2000 is a forged and created document. 7. The trial court rejected the prayer on two grounds namely, (1) it is for the plaintiff to prove that the sale agreement was validly executed and (2) as the sale agreement was registered one, if it is a forged one, the revision petitioners should have given reasons for not filing any police complaint, but no reasons were given by the revision petitioners herein. 8. The trial court is correct in holding that it is for the plaintiff to prove the sale agreement once the defendants filed a written statement stating that the sale agreement is a forged and created one. 8. The trial court is correct in holding that it is for the plaintiff to prove the sale agreement once the defendants filed a written statement stating that the sale agreement is a forged and created one. Even though not giving a police complaint after having come to know of the forgery committed by the respondent herein is not a relevant issue in this case to decide I.A.No.210/2004, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application as the onus is on the plaintiff to prove and establish that the sale agreement dated 9.6.2000 has been duly executed by the parties. 9. That apart in a petition of this nature, comparison is possible only with an admitted document, in which the signature is also admitted. Here the revision petitioners wanted to compare the disputed signatures in the sale agreement, but they have not filed any document containing the admitted signatures for comparison. On this ground also the application No.210/2004 is to be dismissed. 10. Hence there are no merits in the above C.R.P. and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.3559/2005 is also dismissed.