THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4181 of 2011 Date of Order: 23-09-2011 Between: Uppalapati Subbaraju ..Petitioner and 1. Kakarlapudi Satyavati and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4181 of 2011 Oral order: Petitioner/defendant No.2 filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed in I.A. 378 of 2011 in O.S.No.1130 of 2006. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares in which the petitioner/2nd defendant pleaded that his father executed a Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property to him which was contested by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and another person. Since the plaintiff has denied execution of Will and also her signature on the Will as attestor, the above IA was filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 CPC for summoning the District Registrar, Vijayawada for production of thump impression register volume pertaining to Document No.15549/2004, dated 15-12-2004 which contains the signatures and thumb impressions of the executants to give evidence in the case. The learned trial Judge while dismissing the I.A. observed that at the instance of plaintiff the disputed Will was sent to the expert for examination, who after examining the documents gave his opinion that signatures on disputed Will and signatures on the standard documents are not written by one and the same person and it appears to be forged. It is also observed that the Will itself was proved to be not genuine by the report of expert. It is totally a futile exercise for the defendant to prove the examination of attestor. Even if expert gives report that signature in the Will belongs to plaintiff as attestor, it will not serve any purpose, since the signature of the testator found to be not genuine. Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that finding recorded by the trial court viz., that the Will itself was proved to be not genuine by the report of expert, will come in the way of the petitioner, as the opinion of the expert is not final and conclusive and the execution of the Will can be proved by other evidence. It is well settled that any observation made by the Court in an interlocutory application is not final and the truth has to be decided uninfluenced by the observations where the parties establish their case in the main suit. Having regard to the same, petitioner is always at liberty to establish about execution of the Will in the manner prescribed by examining other attestor as observed by the lower court. On leading such evidence, the lower court has to decide the main controversy uninfluenced by the observations. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the admissions stage. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 23-09-2011 Murthy