ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions had been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.Nos.216 & 217 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palladam dated 17.03.2020.

2. The Suit is filed by the sister against the brother for the relief of partition. The Defendant contested the Suit, issues framed and trial commenced. The Plaintiff side let in evidence, marked evidence. After evidence of the Plaintiff was closed the Defendant side let in evidence. At that stage, Defendant No.1 in his evidence marked the Will alleged by the Defendant No.1 to have been executed by the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Will was marked on 06.02.2020. The attester to the Will was examined as D.W.2. After marking of the Will by the Defendant, the Plaintiff side had filed I.A.No.216 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019 seeking to re-open the Plaintiff evidence. Also, another I.A.No.217 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019 was filed to re-call the Plaintiff as Plaintiff witness for the purpose of verifying the signature of the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the alleged Will. Therefore, the Plaintiff had sought summoning all the witnesses from the Banks where the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendants had maintained Savings Bank account and also from the co-operative bank regarding admitted signatures of the Plaintiff's and Defendant's father found in the documents of the Banks, also to summoning the document from the Bank containing admitted signature of the father of Plaintiff and the Defendants so as to compare the alleged signature of the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the alleged Will. The Petition filed by the Plaintiff to re-open the Plaintiff side evidence and to re-call the Plaintiff side witness was resisted by the Defendant. After due enquiry the learned Sub Judge, Palladam dismissed the applications in I.A.No.216 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019, and I.A.No.217 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff had approached this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the alleged Will marked from the evidence. The Petition to re-open and re-call was filed by the Plaintiff on 07.03.2020. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Order XVIII and Rule 3 of the C.P.C, wherein it is stated that after closing of the evidence parties are entitled to prove their contention, order passed in I.A.No.216 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019 and I.A.No.217 of 2020 in O.S.No.169 of 2019 is to be set aside.

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Suit was filed in the year 2012 by the Petitioner herein. The Respondent as Defendant had filed Written Statement in the year 2013. In the Written Statement it was clearly stated that the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant had executed the Will in favour of the Defendant in the Suit, the Respondent in the Civil Revision Petition. While so, the Plaintiff had not disputed the Will during the trial. After closure of the Plaintiff evidence, when the Defendant deposed as witness, he had marked the original Will executed by his father in his favour. The Will was executed in the year 1999 and it was marked during the trial on 06.02.2020. After completion of the Defendant's witness, the Plaintiff had filed two Petitions in I.A.No.51 and 52 of 2020 seeking summoning of witness from the Bank and witness from the Electricity Board to summon documents containing admitted signature of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant to be sent to the Forensic Department to verify the signature of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that to prove the Will, the party who relies on the Will has to mark it. The Will came into existence after the death of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant. Ther