THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No. 1174 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 369 of 2009 in O.S. No. 21 of 2005 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, praying to re-open the suit and permit her to file petition to send Ex.B1 and document No.298/1989 registered by S.R.O., Piler, to handwriting expert, for the purpose of comparison of the signatures of the deceased M. Krishna Reddy. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants filed their written statement, resisting the suit, and they relied on a will dated 09.12.2001 said to have been executed by one late M. Krishna Reddy, the husband of the plaintiff. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a rejoinder stating that her husband late M. Krishna Reddy never executed the said will dated 09.12.2001 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and the said document is a forged document. To prove her contention that the said will dated 09.12.2001, which has been got marked by the defendants as Ex.B1, is a forged document, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present application, seeking the Court below to send Ex.B1 to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparing the signature of her husband late M. Krishna Reddy, available on it, with that of his signature available on the registered document No.298/1989. The defendants 1 and 2 filed counter to the present application, resisting the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff. The Court below, having considered the stand of the parties, dismissed the petition, by the order under revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the order under revision. As can be seen from the record, the defendants 1 and 2 relied on Ex.B1 document and it is their stand that it was executed by the husband of the petitioner- plaintiff in their favour. The petitioner-plaintiff denied their stand and alleged that Ex.B1 is a forged document. If it is the case of the petitioner that Ex.B1 is a fabricated document, she should have filed the present application along with rejoinder, which she did not do, and kept quiet till the trial is over, and has filed this application at the stage when the case is coming up for arguments. No doubt, the petitioner in her rejoinder has taken a plea that the will dated 09.12.2001 is a forged and fabricated document, but no issue has been framed in that regard. This apart, the registered document No.298/1989, which the petitioner-plaintiff wants to be sent to the handwriting expert, for comparison of the signature on Ex.B1, is not an admitted one. The Court below, having taken note of these facts, has dismissed the present petition by reason of the order under revision, and I see no grounds to interfere with the same, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the suit is at the stage of arguments. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Dated: 25th November, 2011. IBL