JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, filed O.S. No. 720 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, to declare them as absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for declaration that the impugned registered sale-deed bearing document No. 1221/1987, dated 16.7.1987 at Sub-Registrar Office, Kankipadu, Krishna District in favour of Kasaraneni Jagadeswara Rao, who is the husband of the first defendant and father of second and third defendants as illegal and not binding on plaintiffs. Pending suit, the present I.A. came to be filed under Order 16, Rule 1 to summon Sub-Registrar, Kankipadu, to produce thumb impressions of document No. 1221 of 1987, dated 16.7.1987 (which is not admitted) and document No. 1533 of 1986, dated 12.9.1986 (which is admitted) for sending the same to expert opinion. 2. As seen from the averments in the affidavit, the suit was filed claiming that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for declaration that sale deed bearing document No. 1221 of 1987, dated 16.7.1987 is created by the husband of the 1st defendant and not binding on plaintiffs. They also sought for recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendant. It is pleaded that they never sold suit property to the husband of the 1st defendant or anybody at any time. It is pleaded that by impersonating the husband of the 1st defendant got fabricated and created registered sale deed dated 16.7.1987. The plaintiffs deny thumb impressions on the sale deed. It is stated that though they admitted selling of Ac. 0.58 1/2 cents of land in Chodavaram Village to one K. Venkateswara Rao of Kasaranenipalem on 12.9.1986 vide document No. 1533 of 1986, they denied the sale deed bearing No. 1221 of 1987, dated 16.7.1987. Hence, pleaded that if the thumb impressions of two documents executed in the year 1986 and in the year 1987 are sent to an expert, truth would come out. 3. Counter came to be filed disputing the averments made in the petition. It is pleaded that petitioners cannot seek sending of thumb impression in respect of document executed in the year 1986 containing admitted signature, for comparison with the disputed document executed in the year 1987. Hence, pleads that filing of this application at a belated stage is only to protract the litigation. 4. It is pleaded that petitioners cannot seek sending of thumb impression in respect of document executed in the year 1986 containing admitted signature, for comparison with the disputed document executed in the year 1987. Hence, pleads that filing of this application at a belated stage is only to protract the litigation. 4. After considering the matter at length, the trial court rejected the same. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision petition is filed reiterating the stand taken i.e. the admission of the defendant in the cross-examination that he has no objection for sending the document to an expert. The learned counsel would contend that in order to give quietus to the litigation and for better appreciation of the evidence, it would be just and proper to send these two documents to expert. 5. However, counsel for the respondent would submit the entire trial is over and case is posted for judgment. Having regard to the above, he pleads that this application is nothing but to drag on the proceedings. 6. As seen from the record, the entire dispute relates to the registered sale deed executed in the year 1987. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for declaration that they are owners of the property and for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.7.1987. At present, the case is said to be posted for judgment. The evidence of the plaintiffs shows that when Ex.B1, that is the registered sale deed, was confronted, he admitted the signatures of the sale deed. To get over the said admission, he went back on the said admission. It may be true that the defendant in his evidence stated that he has no objection for comparing the signature and thumb impression on the documents but, it is to be noted here that he agreed for comparison of documents. That answer given by the defendant was relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners to contend that he has no objection for sending the documents in dispute to an expert. The admission relates to comparison but not by sending the document to expert. 7. Apart from that, a perusal of the said deed shows that the father of the petitioner Venkata Krishnaiah and one Vardhan Rao signed as attestors and identifying witnesses. Therefore, it may not be permissible for the petitioner, at this length of time, to contend that signature on the document is a forged one. 7. Apart from that, a perusal of the said deed shows that the father of the petitioner Venkata Krishnaiah and one Vardhan Rao signed as attestors and identifying witnesses. Therefore, it may not be permissible for the petitioner, at this length of time, to contend that signature on the document is a forged one. If really the petitioner had any suspicion over the said document, he should have made an application at the earliest point of time, more particularly when the witness was confronted with this document. As seen from the record, no objection was raised when the document was marked. It appears that at the fag end of the trial, an objection was raised about the genuinity or otherwise of the signatures/thumb impression on the document. 8. Having regard to the above, I am not inclined to find fault with the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.