(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2863 and 2864 of 2018 have been filed as against the order passed in I.A.Nos.423 and 424 of 2018 in O.S.No.428 of 2017 dated 14.08.2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore and C.R.P.(PD) No.3570 of 2018 has been filed as against the order passed in I.A.No.519 of 2018 in O.S.No.428 of 2017 dated 03.10.2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
(2.) Originally, two suits are filed, one for partition among the family members and another for bare injunction. In the suit for partition, the defendant being the brother of the plaintiff, propounded two Wills. During the examination, he has examined one of the attesting witnesses in one Will and other attesting witnesses in another Will. At that stage, the attesting witnesses turned hostile. They were treated hostile by the plaintiff. Therefore, he has filed an application in I.A.No.519 of 2018 to examine the remaining two attesting witnesses to prove the Will. Similarly, he has also taken up the applications in I.A.Nos.423 and 424 of 2018 to summon the Sub-Registrar, who registered the documents, and to examine the witnesses. The trial Court, has allowed I.A.No.519 of 2018 in O.S.No.428 of 2017, against which, the plaintiff has filed the revision in C.R.P.(PD).No.3570 of 2018. Whereas, the trial Court, by its order dated 14.08.2018, has dismissed the applications in I.A.Nos.423 and 424 of 2018 mainly, on the ground that the Will has to be proved under section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and there is no need to examine the Sub-Registrar.
(3.) The main contention of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2863 and 2864 of 2018 is that without exhausting the procedure contemplated under Sec. 68, the Sub-Registrar cannot be called as witness to prove the Will. Similarly, it is the contention of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) No.3570 of 2018 that such an application has been filed belatedly, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application.