HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Sri N. Subbashastry, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri S. N. Kumarswamy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Other respondents are served, but none appears.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 1999 delivered by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMF ramanagaram, rejecting the revision petitioners application I. A. VIII filed by the defendant No. 4 in the trial court under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of Cr. P. C. in Original Suit No - 72/92.

( 3 ) THE Original Suit No. 72/92 had been filed for partition and separate possession by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 for their legitimate share in the suit Property. The defendant No. 4/revision petitioner appears to have asserted his rights alleging that Linge gowda, deceased 2nd defendant in the case, executed a registered will dated 28. 12. 1992 in favour of the present revision petitioner with respect to properties mentioned in Annexure-B. The defendant realised that the law requires him to prove due execution of the will. No doubt, D. W. 1 and 3 have been examined in the suit. But the defendant filed an application for issuance of an expe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document