ORDER :

V. SUJATHA, J.

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner/3^rd defendant challenging the common order dated 21.09.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner/3^rd defendant for reopening the suit for the purpose of sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4 to expert for comparison of signatures of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on the sale deeds with the signature of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on document No.8/2002 i.e. Will, in Book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar's Office, Kakinada.

2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants with the following prayer:

“1) declare that the sale deed 14-2-2012, which was registered as document No.1259 of 2012 stands in the name of 1st defendant for item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property and the sale deed there under obtained by the 2nd defendant dated 28-3-2013, which was registered as document No.3604 of 2013 in sub registrar's office Kakinada for item No.1 of the plaint B schedule property are null and void documents as the plaintiffs are the owners of the same and grant consequential mandatory injunction directing the sub registrar Kakinada to cancel the entries made relating the above said two documents in their office records

2) declare that the sale deed dated 6-2-2013, which was registered as document No.1049 of 2013 in the name of the 3rd defendant for Item No.2 of the plaint „B' schedule property null and void document as the plaintiffs are the owners of the same and grant consequential mandatory injunction directing the sub registrar Kakinada to cancel the entries made relating the above said document in their office records and award costs and such other reliefs as the Hon'ble court deems fir and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The petitioner/3^rd defendant contested the said suit by contending that Kommu Simhachalam, who is the father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein/defendant Nos.1 and 2 has executed a will bequeathing the plaint B schedule property to respondent Nos.3 and 4/defendant Nos.1 and 2, who in turn have sold their respective share of the property to the petitioner/3^rd defendant. The petitioner further contended that the sale deed dated 28.01.2004 through which the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are claiming their title said to have been executed in their favour by Kommu Simhachalam, is rank forgery and the signature and thumb impression does not belong to the said Kommu Simhachalam. The plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that he has no objection for seeking opinion of an handwriting expert with regard to the signatures and thumb impressions of Kommu Simhachalam in Exs.A1, A2 and A4. But, as the plaintiffs have not filed any petition for sending the documents for the opinion of the handwriting expert and as defendant Nos.1 and 2 are no more, the petitioner/3^rd defendant filed I.A.Nos.1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2023 in O.S.No.214 of 2014 for re-opening the suit, summoning document No.8 of 2002 (Will) in book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar office, Kakinada and for sending Exs.A1, A2 and A4 for comparison of signatures of Kommu Simhachalam appearing on the documents with the signature on document No.8 of 2002 in book No.3 available in Sub-Registrar Office, Kakinada. The trial Court observed that the petitioner on the one hand has denied the execution of sale deed dated 28.01.2004 by Kommu Simhachalam in favour of the plaintiffs, while on the other hand, in his cross examination, the petitioner had deposed that he is contesting the suit on the ground that the said Simhachalam executed the registered sale deed dated 28.01.2004 after executing the will. Having observed thus, the trial Court, has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner by way of a common order dated 21.09