HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2811 OF 2010 DATE:15-04-2011 BETWEEN Medasani Yasoda Devi and another …Petitioners AND Yarlagadda Chandra Sekhara Rao …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2811 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners-plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 1.6.2010 allowing I.A.No.329 of 2009 in O.S.No.431 of 2005 filed to send Ex.B.2-will to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures of testatrix-Yarlagadda Lakshmi Prasanna with that of her signatures available on Exs.B.4, B.5 and Ex.X.2 signature on Ex.X.1 to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion. Admittedly, the suit was filed for partition of suit schedule property. Defendant-respondent herein resisted the suit claiming exclusive rights over the suit schedule property basing upon the will marked as Ex.B.2. It is the plea of the plaintiffs that the will-Ex.B.2 is a fabricated and forged one and in fact, the petitioners-plaintiffs earlier filed a petition to send Ex.B.2-will to the expert but the expert returned those document on the ground that he requires extensive standard signatures of testatrix. In view of the stand took by the plaintiffs-petitioners herein, the defendant-respondent herein filed the impugned I.A. stating that Exs.B.4 and B.5 are pattadar pass books and title deeds containing signatures of testatrix, that Ex.X.1 is register containing signature of testatrix marked as Ex.X.2, and that they are maintained in public officer and if disputed document-Ex.B.2 is sent to the handwriting expert the truth will come out and it is helpful to the Court to find out whether Ex.B.2-will is valid or fabricated document. Accepting the plea of the defendant- respondent herein, the lower Court allowed the impugned I.A. At this stage, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the impugned order for the reason that the petitioner will have a right to file objections to the report that may be submitted by the expert and the Court may or may not accept the report. Further as the petitioners are disputing Ex.B.2 will, the burden always lies on the respondent-defendant to prove and establish the execution of Ex.B.2 will. In that view of the matter, no infirmity is discernable with the discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing the impugned I.A. warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 15, 2011 Tsr.