Order: 1. Heard both. A recapitulation and resume of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions would run thus: The revision petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.219 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, seeking the following reliefs: “To pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants: (a) For partition, division of the suit A, B and C schedule properties with 4 equal share by metes and bounds according to the good and bad nature of the soil and allot one such equal share to the plaintiff free of encumbrance; (b) Awarding costs of the suit payable by the defendants to the plaintiff; and (c) Granting such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” However, the defendant No.1 filed the written statement contending that the deceased propositus executed an unregistered Will in his favour. However, the reply statement was filed by the plaintiff contending that such a Will is a fabricated, concocted and created one. Both the sides went to trial and when the suit was at the argument stage, applications, two in number, were filed, one for reopening and another for sending the alleged Will to an expert for verification as to whether the signature found therein is a genuine one or not. But the Court dismissed both the applications which resulted in the filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would put forth and set forth his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The Will itself is an unregistered one and in the reply notice, the plaintiff raised a plea that the said Will is a fabricated, concocted and created one. For better adjudication, taking the assistance of an handwriting expert for verifying the genuineness of the alleged testator's signature is a must, but the Lower Court simply relied on the time factor and dismissed it warranting interference in revision. 3. For better adjudication, taking the assistance of an handwriting expert for verifying the genuineness of the alleged testator's signature is a must, but the Lower Court simply relied on the time factor and dismissed it warranting interference in revision. 3. Per contra, in a bid to slap down and torpedo the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants, would advance his arguments, which could precisely and briefly be set out thus: At the earliest point of time itself, the plaintiff, if at all he was sincere, could have petitioned the Court seeking such relief, but he had not chosen to do so. Only at the fag end of the suit, such petitions were filed purely for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. Over and above that, the exemplar document, viz. the letter written is not an authentic one and there is one admitted partition deed which emerged during the year 1963 and at least that could have been taken as exemplar document. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Lower Court was justified in dismissing both the applications only based on the time factor. 5. No doubt, the Trial Court should be time conscious. I would recall the following maxims: (1) Justitia nemini neganda est. [Justice is to be denied to no one.] (2) Justitia non est neganda, non differenda. [Justice is not to be denied or delayed.] In the interest of justice, the Court is expected to decide the suit within a time frame. In this case, the suit has been pending ever since 1996. When the suit reached the argument stage during the year 2012, the plaintiff did chose to file those two petitions. Certainly, I cannot find fault with the Court for being time conscious. However, it is a singularly singular case. No doubt, in the reply statement itself, the plaintiff took up the plea that the Will is fabricated, created and concocted one, but the assistance of an expert was not sought for. As such, for the delay in seeking such assistance, the contesting defendants should not be made to suffer. However, it is a singularly singular case. No doubt, in the reply statement itself, the plaintiff took up the plea that the Will is fabricated, created and concocted one, but the assistance of an expert was not sought for. As such, for the delay in seeking such assistance, the contesting defendants should not be made to suffer. I am of the considered view that if an expert's opinion is obtained, certainly that would enable the Court to put its judgment on an even keel. It is trite proposition of law that objectivity is the bedrock of deciding the cases. In the presence of an expert's opinion, the Judge would be able to decide more objectively. With this in mind, I would like to allow those two I.As. by allowing these two Civil Revision Petitions and setting aside the orders of the Court below, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a total sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the first defendant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; whereupon, the Lower Court shall do well to see that the suit of the plaintiff is reopened and an Advocate Commissioner shall be appointed with the following mission: (a) To carry the relevant documents in connection with this case personally in a sealed cover; (b) And produce the same before the Forensic Expert; (c) Leave it in his custody under his acknowledgement for as many days as the Forensic Expert may require; (d) Collect the record from the Forensic Expert on the day as may be fixed by him; (e) Bring it back and lodge it with the Court. The Forensic Expert is directed to complete the examination in any event within a period of one week after the depositing of the same by the Advocate Commissioner with him. After getting the report, both the parties shall be given due opportunity to file objections if any to the report of the Expert. 6. Where possible, the Lower Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the expert's opinion. In order to disambiguate the ambiguity if any, I would like to point out that the exemplar document should be an authentic one. 6. Where possible, the Lower Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the expert's opinion. In order to disambiguate the ambiguity if any, I would like to point out that the exemplar document should be an authentic one. The plaintiff shall see that the authentic document as exemplar document, is furnished to the Court for onward transmission to the expert for comparison purpose. 7. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.