P BANUMATHI Vs. R KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit for partition. The case of the plaintiff is being resisted by the respondents / defendants 2 to 6 by projecting a Will of their mother marked as Ex.B4. The plaintiff is however disputing the genuineness of the Will marked as Ex.B4. It is also found that the plaintiff has also marked certain documents in support of her case and according to the plaintiff, the documents marked as Exs.A8 and A9 contain the LTI of her mother and further, according to her, inasmuch she is disputing the genuineness of the Will marked as Ex.B4 said to have been executed by her mother, it has become necessary on her part to compare the LTI found in Ex.B4 with the admitted LTI of her mother found in Exs.A8 and A9 and therefore, seeking for a direction from the Court to send the same for expert opinion, she has laid the application in I.A.No.275 of 2014, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The said application was resisted by the respondents / defendants contending that only with a view to delay the proceedings, the present application has come to be preferred by the plaintiff and according to them, the suit has come to the stage of arguments and further, the LTIs found in Exs.A8 and A9 are not admitted and therefore, there is no need or no purpose would be served by sending the said documents for comparison with that of the LTI found in Ex.B4 by an expert and hence, the application deserves rejection.

(3.) The Court below accepted the case of the respondents / defendants and accordingly, dismissed the application preferred by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.