JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, filed O.S. No. 712 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, to declare them to be absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No. 3715/2000, dated 2.8.2000 executed at the office of Sub-Registrar Office, Kankipadu, Krishna District. Pending suit, the present I.A. came to be filed under Order 16, Rule 6 to summon Sub-Registrar, Kankipadu, to produce thumb impressions of document No. 3715/2000, dated 2.8.2000 (which is not admitted) and document No. 1364/1996, dated 26.6.1996 (which is admitted) for sending the same to an expert for his 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 No. 3715 of 2000, dated 2.8.2000 is created by the 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 defendant or anybody at any time. It is pleaded that by impersonating, defendant got fabricated and created a registered sale deed dated 2.8.2000. The plaintiffs deny their thumb impressions on the sale deed. It is stated that though they admitted selling of Ac. 2.34 cents of land in Chodavaram Village to S. Madhukar (minor) on 26.6.1996 vide document No. 1364 of 1996, they denied the sale deed bearing No. 3715 of 2000, dated 2.8.2000. Hence, pleaded that if the thumb impressions on those two documents executed in the year 1996 and in the year 2000 are sent to an expert, truth would come out. 3. A 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 1996 and send them for comparison with the disputed document executed in the year 2000. 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. 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 namely 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 a quietus to the litigation and for better appreciation of the evidence, it would be just and proper to send these two documents to expert. The said admission relates to comparison but not for sending the document to expert. 5. However, counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit is at the stage of adducing further evidence on behalf of the defendant. Having regard to the above, he pleads that this application is nothing but to drag on the proceedings. 6. In order to appreciate rival submission it would be appropriate to refer to the averments in the plaint. As seen from the record, the entire dispute relates to the registered sale deed executed in the year 2000. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for declaration stating that they are owners of the property and for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.8.2000. PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit is at the stage of adducing further evidence on behalf of the defendant. In the cross-examination, PW-1 denied to have executed the original of Ex.A2 along with his son. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admits that the passbook pertaining to the plaint schedule used to be with the father of the defendant. It was suggested to him that after execution of Ex.A2 sale deed, he handed over the original pass book to him. Though PW-1 denied his signatures and thumb impressions on the original of Ex.A2, his evidence is silent about the signatures and thumb impressions of the 2nd plaintiff and it is not known whether any of the admitted signatures of the 2nd plaintiff are available with the defendant's father to forge his signatures on the sale deed. Despite the fact that the science of comparison of thumb impressions is a definite science, but, having regard to the facts in issue, I am not inclined to find fault with the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Despite the fact that the science of comparison of thumb impressions is a definite science, but, having regard to the facts in issue, I am not inclined to find fault with the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.