These five revisions arise out of various orders, dated 20.4.2007, passed by the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in OS No.955 of 2002. The parties are common to all the revisions.

2. The petitioner filed the suit for a declaration that she is entitled to be extended the post retirement benefits of late Gantaiah, who retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police Department. She pleaded that she was married to Gantaiah on 5.2.1961, and both of them had three sons, by name Harikumar, Anil Kumar and Aswani Kumar, and out of them, Anil Kumar alone is living. She pleaded that the 1st respondent, who was a subordinate of Gantaiah, developed illicit relations with him and made a claim for the benefits of property left by Gantaiah, as though she is legally wedded wife. The 1st respondent filed a written statement, stating that the marriage between the petitioner and Gantaiah was dissolved, according to the prevalent customs, and thereafter, she married him. Respondents 2 and 3 are said to have been born out of their wedlock.

3. The trial Court framed necessary issues and the trial of the suit commenced. The 1st respondent filed the certified copy of the decree and judgment dated 20.9.1985 in O.S.No.246 of 1985, on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. It is an ex parte decree, declaring that the marriage between the petitioner and Gantaiah was dissolved as per customs. Another document filed by the 1st respondent is the certified copy of the decree in O.P. No.89 of 1980, on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in which the marriage between Gantaiah and the 1st respondent is said to have been referred to. The 1st respondent has also filed a Will, Ex.B31, dated 11.4.2002, said to have been executed by late Gantaiah.

4. In view of the documents filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed I.A. No.168 of 2007, under Rule 5 of Order XIV CPC, with a prayer to frame three additional issues, touching upon the three documents referred to above. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the application. Through its order, dated 2004.2007, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. C.R.P. No.2423 of 2007 is filed against it.

5. Petitioner filed I.A. No.665 of 2007, with a prayer to permit her to adduce evidence, in respect of the additional issues sought to be framed, through I.A. No.168 of 2007. Obviously as a sequel to the order in the said I.A., the trial Court dismissed I.A. No.665 of 2007, and C.R.P. No.2424 of 2007 arises out of it.

6. I.A. No.258 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to send Ex.B31, Will, to the Forensic Laboratory, Maharashtra, at Mumbai, for expert opinion, on a comparison with another document, EX.A2. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., on the ground that the 1st respondent did t not admit that the signature on EX.A2 is \ that of Gantaiah. C.R.P. No.2425 of 2007 is filed against the said order.

7. With a view to establish her case that late Gantaiah was undergoing treatment at Chennai, on the day on which the Will was said to have been executed, the petitioner filed I.A. No. no of 2007, for summoning the Superintendent of Cancer Institute, Adayar, Chennai, to cause production of documents mentioned in the application. This I.A. was also dismissed by the trial Court. CR.P. No.2426 of 2007 is filed against it.

8. The last of the revisions, C.R.P. No.2427 of 2007 arises out of I.A. No.721 of 2007 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC, with a prayer to send the Letter of Guarantee dated 30.11.1985, executed by late Gantaiah, and letter dated 5.10.1987, said to have been written by him to the Guntur Co-operative House Construction Society, for comparison with the signatures on the Will, propounded by the 1st respondent. This application was also dismissed by the trial Court.

9. Sri P. Vijaya Kiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity for the petitioner to file the various applications arose, on account of