THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.2748 of 2010 Date: 16-7-2010 Between Uppalapati Subbaraju … Petitioner/Defendant No.2 and 1. Smt. Kakarlapudi Surya Kumari … Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Kakarlapudi Satyavathi … Respondent/Defendant No.1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.2748 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01-6-2010 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in allowing the application I.A.No.169 of 2010 in O.S.No.1130 of 2006 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of C.P.C., directing to send Ex.B-1 Will to the Government Handwriting Expert along with Exs.X-4 and X-5 for examination and opinion. 3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.1 in the suit before the Court below. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the suit is for partition. The dispute is between the brother and sister (defendants) on one hand and another sister (plaintiff) on the other, relating to the properties of the deceased father. The rights accrued to the defendants allegedly are under a Will dated 27-9-1994. 5. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property, whereas the defence of defendant No.2 is that he got rights over the suit schedule property through the Will dated 27-9-1994 said to have been executed by their late father. 6. The said Will was not accepted by the plaintiff as the same was allegedly fabricated. In order to substantiate the said contention, the plaintiff filed the present interlocutory application seeking to send the signatures on the Will to be compared with the signatures on Exs.X-4 and X-5, which are the documents in the custody of the Pension authorities. Upon such an application, those documents have been furnished by the Pension authorities to the trial Court. 7. It also appears that P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the Deputy Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, South Central Railway Branch, Vijayawada and Head Clerk, Senior DPO Office, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, respectively, where the deceased father of the parties worked, deposed about the documents in Exs.X-4 and X-5, respectively. 8. It further appears that those documents since were furnished by a Government Agency they can be marked and the trial Court had taken the signatures on such material furnished by the Government functionaries as valid and true signatures of the deceased father of the parties. But, defendant No.2 does not accept the said reasoning accorded by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 contends that the procedure adopted by the trial Court is not in conformity with Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is the further contention that those documents in Exs.X- 4 and X-5 do not contain any endorsement of the Passing Officers of the Pension Department. 10. The above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for defendant No.2 may be valid but those objections cannot be taken into account by this Court at this stage. If any opinion is expressed by this Court in the present revision as regards the validity or otherwise of those documents and the signatures therein etc., the same amounts to giving a conclusive opinion in the suit. Of course, even if any opinion is expressed by this Court in this revision, the same cannot be treated as conclusive and any opinion expressed by this Court, notwithstanding the trial Court has the obligation to determine the issue, upon appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. In other words, any opinion expressed in the revision is not conclusive. Similarly, even if any reasoning accorded by the trial Court in the present impugned order, such views cannot be treated as conclusive. 12. All the objections that are being taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court in the revision can always take before the trial Court during the course of arguments. Furthermore, this objection is always open to be taken under Section 105 of C.P.C., as a ground in the appeal in case it is needed. 13. It is needless to mention that the trial Court is at an obligation to express its view basing on the evidence on record independently notwithstanding the reasons accorded by it in the present interlocutory order. They can never be treated as the final and conclusive opinions of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court cannot express any view at this stage since the matter is still open for adjudication by the trial Court. 14. Subject to the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 16th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.2748 of 2010 16th July, 2010. (Ak)