COMMON ORDER

Defendant No.6 in the suit filed the above civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. CRP No.1500 of 2010 is filed against an order, dated 02.03.2010 in I.A.No.1724 of 2009 in O.S.No.07 of 2005, filed under Order XVI and Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 of CPC, on the file of learned Additional District Judge –cum- Judge, Family Court, Eluru.

3. CRP No.1572 of 2010 is filed against an order, dated 02.03.2010 in I.A.No.1723 of 2009 in O.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of learned Additional District Judge –cum- Judge, Family Court, Eluru.

4. Deceased respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2005 against the revision petitioner/defendant No.6 and respondents 2 to 8 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note said to have been executed by late Pasala Surya Chandra Rao.

5. By filing a written statement, the defendants, are contesting the suit.

6. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed. The suit is coming for the defendants’ evidence. At that stage revision petitioner/defendant No.6 filed I.A.No.1723 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A1 promissory note along with the admitted signatures for comparison and verification of the Government Handwriting expert. He also filed I.A.No.1724 of 2009 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to issue summons to ‘the Registrar, Visakapatnam Registrar Office, Visakapatnam’ for production of Will dated 20.01.1987 said to have been executed by late Pasala Surya Chandra Rao during his lifetime.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.1724 of 2009, it was pleaded that Sri Pasala Surya Chandra Rao, during his lifetime, executed a registered Will dated 20.01.1987 and the same is under the care and custody of Registrar, Visakhapatnam. In view of the defense in the written statement, qua forgery of the signature of late Pasala Surya Chandra Rao on Ex.A1, calling for original Will, in the custody of Registrar, Visakhapatnam, is necessary to send the document for comparison with the signature on Ex.A1.

8. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a counter, opposing the interlocutory application.

9. The trial Court, by separate orders, dismissed both applications on 02.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the above two revisions are filed. Pending revisions, the 1st respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 9 to 11.

10. Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthry learned senior counsel assisted by B.Seetha Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11, legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1/plaintiff.

11. Learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.6 would submit that in the written statement, it was specifically contended that the signature of late Surya Chandra Rao on Ex.A1, pronote is forged one. Hence, sending Ex A-1 to the expert for comparison of the signature with the admitted signature of late Surya Chandra Rao, on Will, dated 20.01.1987, is necessary. He would also submit that the document containing contemporaneous signatures of the executants is not necessary for comparison, in view of the reference ordered by the Full Bench vide common order dated

18.12.2015.

12. Learned counsel for respondents 9 to 11, on the other hand, would submit that as pointed by the trial Court, suggestions were made to PWs 1 and 2, during cross-examination, admitting the execution of Ex.A1, pronote by late Surya Chandra Rao. He would also submit that the opinion of an expert is corroborative. He would submit that there is a long gap of 15 years from the date of execution of the alleged Will, dated 20.01.1987. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the revisions.

13. The point for consideration in these revisions is:

Whether the Court below committed any irregularity, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of