ORDER :

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, who is the second defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 177 of 2008, as against the order dated 06.06.2013 passed in I.A. No. 88 of 2012 in O.S. No. 177 of 2008 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Eraniel.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this revision, are as follows:-

(i). The first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, as plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 177 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Eraniel, for declaration that the gift deed, vide document No. 1298 of 1981 of Manavalakurichy Sub Registrar, is to be declared as a fraudulent and void document and to set aside the same. The suit is also for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any encumbrance over the plaint schedule property.

(ii). The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the property originally belonged to one John Pillai Sathyanesan @ J.P. Sathyanesan, S/o. Sathyanesan. It is stated that the said John Pillai Sathyanesan during his life time executed a registered Will, which is also registered as document No. 95 of 1978 before the District Registrar Office. The said John Pillai Sathyanesan died issueless on 11.10.1982. It is stated that the suit property was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and the said Will was executed by Thira. John Pillai Sathyanesan. It is further stated in the plaint that a fraud had been played by registering another settlement deed as if the original owner Thiru. John Pillai Sathyanesan had executed and registered a gift deed in the year 1981. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the alleged gift deed is a fraudulent creation and it is not only by fraud but also by impersonation, the document is registered.

(iii). Though the suit is only in respect of the property, which was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff, it is stated that the Will was also in respect of several other properties that was bequeathed in favour of other heirs of the testator. The suit was contested by the first respondent viz., the revision petitioner by filing a written statement. It is relevant to point out that in paragraph No. 3 of the written statement, it is admitted to the extend of execution of the Will by late. John Pillai Sathyanesan to the children of his brother and sister with life enjoyment to his beloved wife Mrs. Rosammal. Even in subsequent paragraphs of the written statement, the execution of the Will is admitted by the revision petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent in this Civil Revision Petition viz., the plaintiff in the suit filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 88 of 2012 in O.S. No. 177 of 2008 under Section 45 of Evidence Act r/w Order 26 Rule 10 (A) and Section 151 C.P.C., to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for sending the documents viz., the Will (Ex. X2) executed by the testator and Ex. B6, which is the original of registered gift deed stated to have been executed by the same testator in favour of the first defendant for getting expert opinion after comparison of signatures in both the documents. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the first respondent has stated that the file copy of the registered Will which is registered as document No. 95 of 1978 containing the signature of the testator viz., John Pillai Sathyanesan is produced during the examination of P.W. 4 and the document was marked as Ex. X2. It is also stated that the signature of the testator is found in the document marked as Ex. X2. However, the revision petitioners in their counter affidavit opposed the comparison of the signature found in Ex. B6 with that of Ex. X2 and that the document for expert opinion is unnecessary, as the Court itself can compare the disputed signatures. It is also contended by the revision petitioner that the Will relied upon by the plaintiff had not seen the light of the day and for that reas