IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.359 of 2009 Between: Parepalli Murali Nadh …Petitioner A n d Parepalli Venkatrao and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.359 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06-01-2009 in I.A.No.1248 of 2008 in O.S.No.426 of 2004, on the file of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (D-3) under Section 151 CPC to send the Will, which was marked as Ex.B-15, to the handwriting expert, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition against proposed respondent No.2 (D-1) and petitioner (D-3). D-1 remained ex parte. D-4 is stated to be dead. D-2 is stated to be supporting the plaintiff. The petitioner (D-3) herein contested the suit propounding a Will Ex.B-15 dated 11-06-1979 said to have been executed by his father whereunder he claims that certain items of property were given to him and they are not liable for partition. After the plaintiff’s evidence was completed, D-2 was examined as D.W.1. At that stage, the petitioner/D-3 filed I.A.No.1248 of 2008 to send the Will to handwriting expert. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that the signature on the Will is not disputed by the plaintiff. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the signature of the executant is not disputed in the Will as being of their father. The plaintiff, however, is disputing the contents, which were also written by their father, the executant, and, therefore, the Will requires to be sent to handwriting expert. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner merely requested the Court to send the Will to the handwriting expert to confirm the signature of their father P.Radhakrishna Murthy. Inasmuch as there is no dispute regarding the signature of the executant on the Will, as being of their father Radhakrishna Murthy, the trial Court has rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner (D-3). 5. The question of sending the Will for the purpose of comparing the handwriting of deceased P.Radhakrishna Murthy in the Will does not arise, as no such request is made by the petitioner in I.A.No.1248 of 2008. It is open to the petitioner-D-3 to adduce necessary evidence to substantiate his plea that the Will was written by his father in his own hand and also to prove the Will as required under the Evidence Act. 6. The impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner to send the Will to the handwriting expert, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th April, 2011 Lrkm