MALATHY Vs. N.R. RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order, dated 14.02.2014 passed by the III Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I.A. No. 734 of 2013 in O.S. No. 349 of 2008.

(2.) The petitioners are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit O.S. No. 349 of 2008. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioners seeking for partition and for permanent injunction. I.A. No. 734 of 2013 was filed by the petitioners in the final decree proceedings under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking for a direction for comparison of the 1st petitioner's mother-in-law's signature (Marammal) found in the loan document in No. 326 of 2000 with that of the original specimen signatures along with the relevant documents and also to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for obtaining the report from the handwriting expert.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 734 of 2013 in O.S. No. 349 of 2008 that the alleged Will executed by the first petitioner's mother-in-law Marammal in favour of the respondent is a fabricated and forged Will obtained by the respondent by way of coercion and undue influence. A counter statement has also been filed by the first respondent / plaintiff in I.A. No. 734 of 2013 stating that even though the written statement was filed in the suit as early as on 20.11.2008, the petitioners did not file any petition earlier for obtaining the report from the handwriting expert with regard to the genuineness of the signature of the author of the Will viz., Marammal, but had chosen to file an application in the year 2013, after a delay of five long years. Further in the counter statement, the first respondent / plaintiff has denied that Marammal has availed loan from the 4th defendant bank, as alleged by the petitioners. The Trial Court by its order dated 14.02.2014 dismissed I.A. No. 734 of 2013 in O.S. No. 349 of 2008. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit have filed the instant civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.