C.R.P.No. 168 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners-defendants No.3 and 5 being aggrieved by an order made in I.A.No.71 of 2008 in O.S.No. 222 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. C.R.P.No. 216 of 2009 is filed by the self same parties being aggrieved by an order made in I.A.No. 100 of 2008 in O.S.No. 222 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

3. C.R.P.No. 293 of 2009 is filed by the self same parties against the order made in I.A.No. 78 of 2008 in O.S.No. 222 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The said applications were disposed of by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal by a common order dated 2-1-2009.

4. This court ordered notice before admission in these C.R.Ps on 9-2-2009. In C.R.P.No. 168 of 2009, interim stay was granted for a limited period, which was subsequently extended for a further limited period.

5. The contesting. respondents are represented by Sri Vinod Associates, now represented by Sri Vinod Reddy. Hence all these C.R.Ps are being disposed of by this common order.

6. Sri Balasubramanyam, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the leaned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal totally erred in dismissing the applications to send the document to an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of the signatures and another application to send the document dated 12-4-2006 to Revenue Divisional Officer for impounding and for collection of Stamp Duty and Penalty. Instead of sending the document in question to an expert for comparison and also for the purpose of impounding and further allowing an application filed by the opposite party plaintiff to reject the said document on certain grounds, also cannot be sustained. Learned counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the document in question and would maintain that though the document is styled as Relinquishment Deed, as such, the last portion of the recitals would go to show that in furtherance thereof yet another document to be executed and hence, to hold that the same is inadmissible in evidence on the ground of want of registration cannot be sustained. The counsel also would maintain that this is a matter to be decided at the stage of final disposal of the suit, and it may not be just and proper to prejudge the said issue holding that the said document is inadmissible at this stage and refusing to send the document to an hand writing expert also cannot be sustained and hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the common order under challenge is liable to be set aside and appropriate orders to be made. Le1ned counsel also relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

7. On the contrary Sri Vinod Reddy representing Vinod Associates the counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that this is a suit for partition and the main contest is between the sister, the brother and the wife of the said brother. The counsel would also maintain that the defence is that by virtue of relinquishment deed the sister had relinquished her share in the family properties. The learned counsel also would maintain that the recitals of the document in question being clear and categorical, no further question is left over to be decided relating to the validity or admissibility of the document and hence to postpone the question to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit would be a futile exercise. Hence learned Judge arrived at a correct conclusion that there is no need of sending this document to an expert. Learned counsel also further had taken this Court through the contents of the document and would maintain that in the light of the recitals of the document in question the said document to be construed as relinquishment deed. In the commencement of the document, it is recited as Relinquishment Deed an