COMMON ORDER

(1) These two Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the revision petitioners in the Original Petition in OP.No.69/2013 on the file of learned Principal District Judge at Pondicherry, as against the order dismissing the applications in IA.Nos.503 and 505/2019, which were filed by the petitioners herein to reopen the petitioners’ side evidence which was closed on 09.02.2019 and to issue subpoena to Professor Ramakrishnan, who has given expert opinion, for cross examination.

(2) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions are as follows.

(3) The revision petitioners filed OP.No.69/2013 under Sections 234 and 279 of the Indian Succession Act to prove the Will in common form and to grant Letters of Administration to the Will stated to have been executed by late Mrs.Marie Gisle Therese Louise, It is the case of the revision petitioners that late Mrs.Marie Gisle Therese Louise is the wife of late Mr.Lourdes Marie Francois @ Lourdes Rassa.

(4) The revision petitioners in their petition stated that Mrs.Marie Gisle Therese Louise is their paternal aunt being the sister of their father late Mr.Robert Sinnas. The Original Petition is for grant of Letters of Administration for the Will executed by Mrs.Marie Gisle Therese Louise [hereinafter referred to as the Testatrix]. The 1st respondent is the sister-in-law of the testatrix and respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of the other sisters-in-law of the testatrix who are no more.

(5) It is stated that the testatrix had bequeathed her property in favour of her husband late Mr.Lourdes Marie Francois @ Lourdes Rassa. It is further stated that she gave life interest without a power of alienation. It is further stated that the property will thereafter be inherited by the petitioners herein in equal shares. The Will propounded by the petitioner was dated 31.05.1993 and it was registered as Document No.174/1993. It is also admitted that the husband of the testatrix died on 13.06.1999. Hence, the petitioners herein filed OP.No.69/2013 with the aforesaid prayer.

(6) The Original Petition was seriously opposed by the respondents herein who are the eldest sister-in-law and the legal heirs of the other sisters-in-law of the testatrix. It is the case of the respondents in the proceedings that the said Will executed by the testatrix was subsequently cancelled by her under the Deed of Cancellation dated 27.09.1995 which is also registered as Doc.No.344/1995.

(7) M/s.S.P.Arthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the cancellation of the Will in the year 1995 was specifically disputed by the revision petitioners herein and that the document cancelling the Will, is prepared with the forged signature of the testatrix. The deed of cancellation was also registered. Hence it is also alleged that the cancellation was registered by impersonation.

(8) Therefore, the only issue is whether the Will originally executed in favour of the petitioners in the year 1993 was subsequently cancelled by the testatrix herself in the year 1995 and whether the subsequent document cancelling the Will is a forged or fabricated document registered by impersonation.

(9) It is admitted before this Court that the petitioners' side witnesses were examined and the evidence on the petitioners' side was closed on 12.02.2019. When the case was posted for the respondents' side evidence, the revision petitioners filed two applications in IA.Nos.503 and 505/2019 to reopen the case and to recall the evidence on the expert opinion for cross examination and to send subpoena to Professor Ramakrishnan to adduce evidence. The said Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the petitioners have filed the applications after the evidence on their side was closed and that the Court has not ordered to send the documents for expert opinion and therefore, the examination of the so-called expert as a witness is in no way helpful to decide the case sinc