In a suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title and for other consequential reliefs in respect of the immovable property said to have been bequeathed to it under a Will, said to have been executed by the father of the revision petitioners, respondent filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-8 r/w Section 151 CPC to appoint a Commissioner to record the evidence of the scribe and attestors of the Will relied on by it at their residences which was allowed by the order under revision in spite of opposition by the revision petitioners. Hence this revision.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since execution of the Will by the father of the revision petitioners in favour of the respondent is denied and disputed by the revision petitioners and since the opinion of the expert, to whom the disputed Will was sent, which is available in the Court record, shows that the signatures on the disputed Will were not made by the father of the revision petitioners, the trial Court, in exercise of its discretion, should have refused to appoint Commissioner because it, which has to decide the issue relating to the genuineness of the Will, would be