ORDER:

Plaintiffs, in the suit, filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 15.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.331 of 2021 in O.S.No.204 of 2010 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli.

2. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.204 of 2010 to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property after evicting the defendant from the said properties; 2) for partition of item No.3 of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds by separating Ac.0-50 cents from out of the schedule property and deliver the remaining cents of property to the plaintiffs, etc.

3. Plaintiffs are claiming title over item Nos.1 to 3 by virtue of registered Will deed, dated 10.10.1977 said to have been executed by Appalanarasayya; that suit schedule properties fell to the share of father of Appalanarasayya i.e. Appanna through registered partition deed, dated 12.08.1964; that Appanna in turn executed registered Will, dated 25.01.1972 bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of Appalanarasamma, mother of the defendant with a condition to enjoy the schedule properties during her life time without any right of alienation and directed to handover the possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties to Appalanarasayya; that after the death of Appalanarsamma, the suit schedule property devolved upon Applanarasayya except Ac.0-50 cents in item No.3 of suit schedule properties, for which defendant is entitled for; that Appalanarasayya executed Will, dated 10.10.1977 bequeathing all his properties in favour of the plaintiffs; that after death of Appalanarasayya, without handing over possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs as per Will, dated 25.01.1972 executed by Appanna, defendant is enjoying the property illegally; that plaintiffs’ got issued legal notice, dated 01.02.2010 demanding the defendant to partition item No.3 and to deliver possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties; that defendant got issued reply notice, dated 20.02.2010 with false and frivolous allegations and hence, the suit was filed.

4. Defendant by fling written statement is contesting the suit.

5. Pending the suit, plaintiffs filed I.ANo.331 of 2021 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.B1, Will to Forensic Laboratory, Amaravathi for comparison of thumb impression with that of thumb impression of Appanna before Sub-Registrar, Anakapalli as first executants on a registered partition deed, dated 12.08.1964 i.e. Ex.A2.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while reiterating the averments of the plaint it was contended inter alia that the defendant while disputing the execution of Will deeds, dated 25.01.1972 and 10.10.1977, categorically stated that late Appanna, grandfather of plaintiff No.2 and defendant executed an unregistered Will, dated 01.03.1972; that the Will was marked as Ex.B1 and that the thumb impressions on Ex.B1 does not belong to Appanna and it was concocted and forged one. As plaintiffs are disputing the genuineness of Ex.B1, they filed the present application to send Ex.B1 to forensic science labouratory at Amaravathi for comparison of thumb impressions of Appanna on Ex.B1 with that of the thumb impressions subscribed by Adari Appanna before Sub-Registrar, Anakapalle, as first executants on registered partition deed, dated 12.08.1964, which was exhibited as Ex.A2.

7. Respondent/defendant filed counter and opposed the application. It is contended inter alia that the present application is filed at a belated stage only to protract the litigation. Plaintiffs already filed reopen petition and petition for amendment of pleading after a prolonged period of ten years after filing of the suit. Plaintiffs’ are aware that document Ex.A2 is not in proximate time with Ex.B1 and even in the absence of Ex.B1, defendant alone is the sole surviving legal heir of late Adari Appanna, being