APHC010165492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 712/2022 Between: Nallamalli Bhargya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND Medapati Gangayamma Gangaratnam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.No.712 of 2022 O R D E R: The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 23.02.2022 in I.A.No.26 of 2020 in O.S.No.218 of 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. 2. Petitioner is the Defendant. The suit O.S.No.218 of 2016 was filed by the Respondent for recovery of money of Rs.4,22,533/- on the strength of a registered mortgage deed dated 01.11.2011 said to have been executed by the Defendant vide document No.3497/2011 dated 01.11.2011. In the course of trial, the Defendant filed written statement disputing the claim and thumb impression on the mortgage deed relied on by the Plaintiff. 3. In the course of trial, an application was filed by the Petitioner/Defendant to send Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed to finger prints expert for comparison with the admitted thumb marks of the Defendant to establish the defence. The said application, on contest, was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the Petitioner did not file contemporaneous thumb impressions in the Court. Hence, the present revision petition. 3 4. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Though notice is served to the Respondent, there is no appearance. Hence, the revision was heard on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no requirement of producing any contemporaneous thumb impressions since the thumb impressions unlike signatures do not alter with time. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the thumb impressions do not alter with time and the requirement of contemporaneousness as applicable to signatures would not be applicable to thumb impressions. 7. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. To avoid further delay, the trial Court may proceed with the trial with the certified copies of the suit documents instead of waiting for the opinion of the expert. Upon receipt of the expert opinion, further steps may be taken by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.02.2025 KLP 4