HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3253 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners-defendants filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the order dated 27.7.2011 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissing I.A.No.334 of 2011 in O.S.No.499 of 2007 filed by them under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Exs.B1 and B10 to the Central Government Forensic Lab, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for comparison of all the signatures of late Valluru Venkata Subbaiah including on the backside of first page of Ex.B1 and for expert opinion. It is not in dispute that when the matter was posted for judgment, the defendants filed I.A.No.350 of 2009 to send both the wills Exs.B1 and B10 to Government expert to compare the thumb marks. The said I.A. was allowed and the documents were forwarded for examination of thumb marks on both the wills and after receipt of the report, on the ground that the signatures therein were not examined by the expert, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.207 of 2010 for referring both the Wills to the Finger Print expert. But the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed CRP No.2893 of 2010 and the said CRP was allowed and in pursuance of the same, the Court below sent Exs.B1 and B10 to a private expert, who examined the documents and sent report. The said expert was also examined. When the matter was coming up for arguments, the defendants filed the impugned application to send the documents in question to the Central Government Expert for second opinion. As can be seen from the material on record, it is obvious that during the course of cross-examination, it was elicited by the Counsel for the defendants that expert examined only the signatures on the Will, but he did not examine the signatures put by the executant (testator) on the backside of the first page of Ex.B1 will, which will be taken for the purpose of identification of the signatures for registration of documents. Contending that the entire opinion given by the expert becomes invalid, the petitioners-defendants filed the impugned I.A. seeking to send the documents in question for comparison of the signatures by another expert. The Court below dismissed the impugned I.A. holding that the propounder has to prove only the execution of the Will by examining one of the attestors under Will, but the propounder need not prove the registration of the will and simply because will is registered, mere proof of registration does not amount to proof of execution of the will. No doubt, in the instant case, lot of evidence has been adduced by the parties by way of primary evidence. Leaving apart the primary evidence, the parties are filing the applications one after another for sending the documents in question for comparison of signatures therein. The approach of the parties is not at all sustainable in view of the settled proposition of law that opinion of an expert is very weak piece of evidence and is not conclusive. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:27th August, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3253 OF 2011 27.8.2011 Nn