CRP/6441/2026 of Muniyappa Vs Chaitra on 8 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 04.07.2026 passed in IA No.11 of 2026 in OS No.60 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/defendants to summon the fingerprint expert to adduce evidence regarding the report dated 27.11.2025, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

CRP No. 6441 of 2026

3. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2019 seeking for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs.

4. The petitioners, who are the defendants, filed I.A.No.11 of 2026 to summon the fingerprint expert to adduce evidence regarding the report dated 27.11.2025. Such an application came to be filed on the ground that the petitioners filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of C.P.C., to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to direct him to take the original registered Partition Deed dated 24.02.1994 and the disputed Will dated 04.08.1994 to the Forensic Department and to verify the thumb impression of the grandfather viz., Marapppa and to verify the age of the ink written in the Will. The said application filed in I.A.No.9 of 2025 was allowed by the Court below and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the documents were sent to the fingerprint expert and the fingerprint expert submitted a report dated 27.11.2025 stating that the disputed left hand thumb impression, marked as Ex.D1, is unfit for comparison.

CRP No. 6441 of 2026

5. In the above circumstances, the petitioners filed the present Interlocutory Application for issuance of a summon to the fingerprint expert to adduce evidence regarding the report dated 27.11.2025.

6. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that, in the light of the report given by the expert, there is no need for calling the expert to give evidence. The Court below rightly held that if positive or a negative report had been given by the expert, there will be some meaning in calling the expert for examination and if the expert has come to a conclusion that the thumb impression is unfit for comparison and consequently, no report was given, the Court below found that calling the expert for giving the evidence is unnecessary.

7. The reasoning given by the Court below is perfectly in order and does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any positive or negative report, no useful purpose will be served in calling the expert to tender any evidence.

CRP No. 6441 of 2026

8. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 04.07.2026 passed in IA No.11 of 2026 in OS No.60 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur, is confirmed.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed and there shall be a direction to the Additional District Judge, Hosur, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2019, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR

CRP No. 6441 of 2026

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The Additional District Judge, Hosur. CRP No. 6441 of 2026 08-10-2026