The Court has a duty to render substantial justice and sufficient opportunity should be afforded to prove a disputed Will.

1. The present Revision has been preferred by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order dated 6. 1998 made in unnumbered I.A. of 1998 (SR.No. 1170 of 98) in O.S.No. 239 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur.

.2. The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in the said original suit. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The parties to this Revision will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. The plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No. 239 of 1986 against fourteen defendants for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share and for other consequential reliefs. The suit came to be instituted as early as 17th November 1986. The 3rd defendant had filed a written statement on 212. 1991. The 3rd defendant had also filed an additional written statement on 111. 1997. It is not necessary to detail the case and counter case of either parties for the purpose of deciding this Revision Petition and it would be sufficient to mention that the contesting defendants put forward a Will executed by Palanimalai Gounder through and by which they resist the suit claim among other defences.

3. The plaintiff served notice on the defendants 2 and 3 calling upon them to produce the will put forward by them in the written statement by notice dated 13. 1998 and the same has been filed into court, after serving on the counsel for the defendants 1,2, & 3, Thereafter on 23rd March 1998, the plaintiff had filed a reply statement into Court, wherein the plaintiff specifically pleaded for the first time that the alleged Will executed by Palanimalai dated 6. 1985 is forged, created, concocted and fabricated document. The plaintiff also pleaded that the signature of Palanimalai Gounder in the will has been forged and the unregistered Will being a forged document will not confer any right over the suit property. It is to be stated that prima facie burden is on the defendants, who rely upon the Will to prove due execution and attestation by the testator, even if the Will is not admitted. However, in the present case serious challenge has been made only in the reply statement.

4. At that stage, in the light of the specific challenge to the Will in the reply statement, the 3rd defendant took out an interlocutory application in the said suit in S.R.No.1170 of 1998 praying the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Karur to send the disputed Will dated 6. 1985 for the opinion of the Government hand writing expert, Chennai along with other admitted signatures of the testator, Palanimalai Gounder. The defendants 2 and 3 also filed another interlocutory application praying for appointment of a Commissioner to take the Will dated 6. 1985 to the Government Handwriting expert at Chennai, along with documents containing the admitted signature for the purpose of getting the expert opinion.

.5. The said applications were filed into Court on 33. 1998 and were returned by the Court and re-presented on 4. 1998 as well as on 20.4.1998. On 24. 1998, the counsel for the petitioners made an endorsement that the interlocutory application may be called in open Court. Notice was given to other side and the two interlocutory applications, which remain, un-numbered were called before the Public Court on 6. 1998 as per the orders of the Court dated 24. 1998. On 6. 1998 the Court below, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners in the two interlocutory applications, rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

6. Heard Mrs.P. Bagyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the caveator.

7. The Court below without numbering the applications had rejected the same on the sole reasoning that till the commencement of trial, the 3rd defendant has not taken steps to produce the Will or to send the Will for expert opinion and that the petition is belated