ORDER :

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair & decreetal orders of the learned Subordinate Judge's Court at Kallakurichi, dated 31.07.2018 in I.A.Nos.346 & 347 of 2018 respectively in O.S.No.192 of 2012. In both C.R.Ps.

The Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against fair and decreetal orders dated 31.07.2018 passed in I.A.Nos.346 & 347 of 2018 respectively, in O.S.No.192 of 2012, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, thereby dismissing the petition to reopen the case and also dismissing the petition seeking hand writing export's opinion.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed suit for partition claiming 1/12 share in the suit properties. The case of the petitioner is that originally the suit properties belonged to one T.R.Rajagopal Mudaliar and thereafter, the suit properties were divided by the family members by the registered partition deed dated 13.02.2006. As per the partition deed, C schedule property was allotted in favour of her son Ramesh. He was in possession and enjoyment of the property and he died intestate on 24.08.2012. The first respondent is the wife, the second and third respondents are his minor children. The petitioner is the mother of the said deceased Ramesh. The deceased Ramesh and the second and third respondents are being the member of co-parcenary family, they are each entitled to have 1/3 share. On the demise of the said Ramesh, his 1/3 share would devolve to his legal heirs viz., petitioner and the respondents as such the petitioner is entitled to have 1/12 share in the suit property. Hence, she filed the present suit for partition.

3. The respondents resisted the same and had taken specific stand that the suit property was allotted in favour of the said deceased Ramesh by the registered partition deed dated 13.02.2006. Thereafter, the said Ramesh executed a Will dated 09.07.2012, thereby bequeathed entire suit property in favour of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have any share over the property.

4. After closing both side evidences, when the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed petition to re-open her evidence and also filed petition to send the Will dated 09.07.2012 for hand writing experts opinion, for the reason that her son never executed any Will and it was fabricated one. She also has taken specific stand that the respondents resisted the suit by way of filing written statement that the entire property bequeathed in their favour by the Will dated 09.07.2012. However, they failed to produce the Will along with written statement. Only at the time of examination of D.W.1, it was produced and marked as Ex.B.1. Therefore, the petitioner filed petitions to re-open the case and also to send the alleged Will for handwriting expert's opinion. Both the petitions were dismissed by the trial Court, as against which the present Civil Revision Petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents failed to produce the Will dated 09.07.2012, along with the written statement. Order 8 Rule 1A of C.P.C., specifically contemplates that the documents which are relied upon by the defendants should be produced along with the written statement. Further there are circumstances to show that the deceased Ramesh never executed any Will, since he died due to heart attack on 24.08.2012 viz., immediately after execution of alleged Will dated 09.07.2012. He also relied upon the Will dated 09.07.2012 and contended that the signature of the deceased Ramesh differs from each page to each page.

5.1. He further submitted that there was no delay in filing the petition seeking hand writing expert's opinion, since a copy of the Will was not produced by the respondents along with the written statement and it was marked only at the time of examination of D.W.1. Immediately after examination of D.W.1, th