ORDER :

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 08.06.2016 in I.A.Nos.142 & 143 of 2015 in O.S.No.56 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Salem, in I.A.Nos.142 & 143 of 2015 in O.S.No.56 of 2011, thereby allowing the petitions seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner and to get hand writing experts opinion.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant and the respondents 1 & 2 are the plaintiffs. The respondents 1 & 2 filed suit in O.S.No.56 of 2011 for partition and declaration to declare the Wills dated 23.11.2003 and 05.10.2009 are fabricated, false and forged one and also to declare that the release deed dated 17.09.2003 is null and void, with consequential injunction not to alienate the suit properties. While pending the suit, the respondents 1 & 2 filed applications seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking the disputed Will dated 23.11.2003 and the admitted document viz., the settlement deed dated 17.09.2003 and also for comparing the disputed signature in the Will dated 23.11.2003 with admitted signature of the deceased found in the Settlement deed dated 17.09.2003 and get hand writing expert's opinion from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. Both the petitions were allowed and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that these applications were filed by the respondents 1 & 2 on the third occasion in order to seek hand writing expert's opinion with regard to the Will. The petitioner has claimed the suit properties through Will. Therefore, the burden of proof is only on the shoulder of the petitioner and the petitioner has to be prove the Will in the manner known to law. The hand writing experts opinion would not held in any way to prove the Will or disprove the same.

3.1. She further submitted that already the respondents 1 & 2 claimed report from the private Forensic Laboratory and thereafter they also filed another application to get hand writing expert's opinion in the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai. Already they obtained hand writing expert's opinion and without even filing any objection, on third time, these applications seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner in order to obtain hand writing experts opinion from Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The Court below mechanically allowed the same without considering the fact that already hand writing expert's opinion obtained on the insistance of the respondents 1 & 2, without scraping the earlier opinion, should not have appointed another Advocate Commissioner in order to get third opinion from the hand writing expert.

3.2. In support of her contention, she relied upon the the judgment reported in AIR 1996 Mad 347 in the case of Vemba Gounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder, in which this Court held that it is well settled proposition that until the Court is dissatisfied with the proceedings and report of the Commissioner earlier appointed, it will not be proper to ignore the same and direct even further enquiry, much less the scrapping of the earlier report as a whole and appoint a fresh Commissioner. The power is circumscribed by the principles under Order 26 Rule 10(3) of C.P.C. The power can be exercised only on the finding that the proceedings and the report of the earlier Commissioner are not satisfactory and there is need for a further enquiry. Further held that the appointment of second Commissioner and the reports filed by him, without setting aside first Commissioner's report, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that though they obtained expert's opinion from the private forensic lab a