HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:3321 & 3326 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner-plaintiff filed these revisions seeking to revise the orders dated 19.7.2011 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, in I.A.Nos.231 & 232 of 2011 in O.S.No.985 of 2009. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of the plaint schedule property and for separate possession of her share therein. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got Exs.A1 to A3 marked. After completion of the evidence on both sides and when the suit has been coming up for arguments, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the impugned I.As to reopen her evidence and also to summon attendance register from the school for sending the same to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of Elizabeth with the signature on the disputed will. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that Ex.B5 will is a forged and fabricated document and that the defendant, who examined as D.W.1, admitted in the cross-examination that his mother Elizabeth has worked as a Teacher in I Town School and retired in the year 1995 and the school records are available in the school. It is stated that if the attendance register is summoned and sent to an expert to compare the signature therein with the signature on Ex.B5 will, it would be very useful to prove her case. The Court having observed that it is a common practice that any employee would put initial in the Attendance register, but not signatures and even if the attendance register is summoned, no purpose would be served, dismissed both the applications. Hence, the present revisions. It is pertinent to note that when the defendant got marked Ex.B5- will, it is for him to establish the execution and genuineness of the same, but it is not for the plaintiff to disprove the execution of the will. Further, ExB5 is of the year 1988 and it is no where stated as to the availability of contemporaneous signatures as on that date. Apart from that, the order of the Court below is well reasoned order. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the orders of the Court below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:27th August, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:3321 & 3326 OF 2011 27.8.2011 Nn