1. The present petition invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the orders passed by the Revenue Courts below including the Board of Revenue have been put to question.

2. The bone of contention between the rival parties is the rejection of an application under Order 26 rule 10(a) r/w section 151 of CPC in a proceedings for mutation initiated by the petitioner before the Tahsildaar, Ambah, District Morena.

2.1 The aforesaid application was moved by the petitioner based on the order of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner Chambal Division on 25.7.2007 for the purpose of enquiry into the relevancy and authenticity of both the wills to be decided by the Courts below. When the matter was reconsidered by the Tahsilaar, an application under Order 26 rule 10(a) r/w section 151 of CPC on 25.6.2008 was moved by the petitioner which was replied to by the other side.

2.2 The Tahsildaar passed an order dated 4.6.2011(Annexure P-10) rejecting the said application on the ground that the same had been filed to delay the proceedings.

2.3 The said order of Tahsildar was assailed before the Additional Collector who rejected the revision on 27.6.2012 upholding the order dated 4.6.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner directly approached the Board of Revenue by filing a revision which was decided by the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 rejecting the same and recorded the finding that the duty to prove the will is upon the petitioner and not upon the Court. The petitioner is thus, before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

4. True it is that the proceedings before the Revenue Courts are not as detailed as prescribed in the CPC but the principles and the fundamentals on which the CPC is based certainly govern the procedure followed by Revenue Courts provided the same is not expressly excluded in the Code, 1959. At this juncture, the provision of section 43 of Code of 1959 is adverted to and reproduce below;

“43. Code of Civil Procedure to apply when no express provision made in this Code- Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Code, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) shall, so far as may be, be followed in all proceedings under this Code.”

From the above, it is vivid that provisions of CPC unless expressly excluded and the same would apply to proceedings before the Revenue Courts.

4.1 Admittedly, the 1959 Code does not expressly exclude the application of Order 26 rule 10(a) of CPC. More so, the proceedings in the Revenue Courts are essentially civil in nature. The statutory law laying down different procedures governing proceedings of civil nature are provided in detail in the CPC which is the mother of all civil procedural laws. The Revenue Courts below are obliged to adopt, if not in detailed but atleast in principle the said procedures. The provision invoked by the petitioner i.e. Order 26 relates to commission appointed by Court for examination of witnesses for local investigation, for scientific investigation, performance of ministerial acts, sale of movable property, to examine the accounts, to make partitions etc. rule 10(a) of Order 26 in paticular relates to appointment of commission for scientific investigation by an expert which can not be conveniently conducted before the Court for want of expertise with the Court.

5. In the case at hand, the petitioner for examining the authenticity and genuineness of signature over the two Wills sought examination of the same by a Handwriting Expert by way of the said application under Order 26 rule 10(a) of CPC. Undoubtedly, the entire claim of the petitioner appears to be hinged upon the said two Wills and therefore, it was justified for the petitioner to have sought verification of authenticity of the signatures of testator appended to the said Wills. Thus it was incumbent upon the concerned Revenue Court before whom the said application was filed to have dealt