C O M M O N O R D E R

CRP.No.2003 of 2021 is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.551 of 2018 passed by the Subordinate Judge Court at Omalur, dated 13.08.2021 and CRP.No.2004 of 2021 is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.551 of 2018 passed by the Subordinate Judge Court at Omalur, dated 13.08.2021 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that I.A.No.1 of

2021 in O.S.No.551 of 2018 was filed for receiving duplicate plaint along with documents (certified copy) as additional documents and I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.551 of 2018 was filed for recalling PW1(the petitioner herein) for adducing additional evidence and to mark the documents mentioned in that Petition. The suit was filed by the Respondent herein to declare that the suit properties belong to the Respondent/Plaintiff by virtue of the will dated 01.05.2006 executed by one Mr.V.Manickam, S/o.Velusamy Chettiar and to direct the 2nd defendant to hand over the possession of the suit properties and to declare that sale deed dated 27.11.2006 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit property as null and void and does not bind the rights upon the suit properties. The suit was filed based on the Will dated 01.07.2006. He would further submit that the date of Will is shown as 01.05.2006 in the first page, but in the 3rd page of the Will it is found that the Will was typed on 11.05.2006. If the Will was typed on 11.05.2006, Will could not have been executed on 01.05.2006. This raises serious suspicion on the genuineness of the Will. The Petitioner has also filed application for sending disputed Will, for comparison with admitted signature to the hand writing expert and that was dismissed. When that being so, an application for producing additional documents, especially certified copy of document by recalling PW1 for the purpose of marking cannot be entertained. However, without considering the objections raised by the Petitioner, both the applications were allowed by the trial Court. Against the said order, this Petition is preferred.

3.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the certified photocopy of duplicate plaint cannot be obtained, the prayer for producing the certified photocopy of duplicate plaint and documents annexed thereto is not in accordance with law. For this reason also the applications filed for receiving additional document cannot be entertained.

4.Considered the submissions and perused the records.

5.It appears that apart from the genuineness of the Will dated

01.05.2006 challenged by the Petitioner, there is yet another discrepancy in the Will dated 01.05.2006 produced for my perusal. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, in the 1st page of the Will, the date was shown as 01.05.2006 and in the 3rd page it is stated as the Will was typed on 11.05.2006. Thus there is apparent error on the face of the record as to whether the Will was typed on 01.05.2006 or 11.05.2006 and whether Will was executed on 01.05.2006. However, this Court also noticed that one of the attesting witnesses and the person who signed the Will put the date of execution as 01.05.2006. The discrepancy in showing the date of typing of the Will as 11.05.2006 is required to be proved before the Court. It is possible only if the attesting witnesses are examined. Whether it is genuine mistake or some kind of mischief is involved would be known only if the examination of witnesses is done.

6.For this purpose, the Respondent seeks to produce certified xerox copy of the duplicate plaint along with documents as exhibits. But copies cannot be permitted to be marked. Duplicate plaint and other copies of documents filed along with plaint would certainly be available in the Court. Instead of permitting the parties to mark the certified copies of duplicate plaint and documents, the Court may permit the Respondent to mark the duplicate plaint and the