A party is not precluded from relief due to a wrong citation of law if the merits of the case justify its consideration.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.426 of 2019 in O.S.No.490 of 2015, dated 07.06.2022 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, dismissing the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.490 of 2015 against the respondents claiming the reliefs of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute and exclusive owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner creating any encumbrance over the suit property and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The plaintiffs have claimed ownership over the suit properties on the basis of Will dated 05.04.2004 alleged to have executed by the deceased Chellammal. The defendants have filed their written statement mainly contending that the Will alleged to have been executed by the Chellammal dated 05.04.2004 is a forged, fabricated, created and concocted by the plaintiffs.

4. Pending suit, the defendants have taken steps to send the disputed Will along with settlement deed, dated 13.05.2002 containing the thumb impression of the deceased Chellammal for comparison and for getting a report. The defendants have filed a petition in I.A.No.431 of 2018 to send the signature and thumb impression register relating to the settlement deed dated 13.05.2002 and registered under Book No.I in Doc.No.1955/2002 of Karur West Sub Registrar Officer executed by Sellammal in favour of M.Indirani/first defendant and the petition was ordered to be allowed.

5. It is not in dispute that originally the documents were sent to the Forensic Laboratory, Madurai, but they have returned the same stating that the Forensic Laboratory at Madurai was not having necessary facilities and directed for sending the same to the Forensic Laboratory, Chennai and as per their instructions, the documents were sent to the Forensic Laboratory, Chennai for comparison and report and that the report is awaited.

6. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have filed the above application alleging that they were having the partition document dated 22.04.1968 entered into between the deceased Chellammal and family members; that though the plaintiffs have produced the said document along with memo, the learned trial Judge has omitted to include the said document while sending the documents for comparison and that therefore, he was constrained to file the above application to send the partition document dated 22.04.1968 also for comparison and report.

7. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter statement raising serious objection, mainly contending that the plaintiffs aggrieved by the orders of trial Court ought to have preferred the revision, that the above application filed under Section 152 C.P.C., is legally not maintainable and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order, dated 07.06.2022, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the plaintiffs have preferred the present revision.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the revision petitioners have specifically stated that they are not having any objections to send the settlement deed and the disputed Will for comparison and for getting opinion; that the plaintiffs have nowhere stated about the availability of the partition document at that time or even thereafter and the above petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings and that therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

9. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have endorsed no objections for sending the disputed document along with settlement deed, dated 13.05.2002 for comparison and report.

10. The learned counsel for the peti