The petitioners (plaintiffs in the original suit) filed two Civil Revision Petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging orders dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, which dismissed two interlocutory applications (I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024) in O.S.No.22 of 2024. The underlying suit sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991, with the defendants denying execution and alleging forgery. The plaintiffs sought to have the 1st defendant's thumb impression taken in court and the agreement sent to a handwriting/fingerprint expert for comparison. The trial court dismissed the applications on the ground that a preliminary issue of limitation was pending and that sending the document to an expert was premature since the document had not yet been marked in evidence. The High Court found the trial court's reasoning legally unsustainable, observing that comparison of thumb impressions is an exact science (relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1708) and that sending the document to an expert would assist the court regardless of whether the document had been formally marked.