ORDER : Defendant No.5 in O.S.No.252/2012 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal, is before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India questioning the order dated 18.02.2020 by which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC is allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition papers. 3. Learned counsel submits that the suit is at the stage of arguments and at that stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC to refer Ex.D2-Will for scientific investigation and comparison of thumb impression of Smt. Lingamma with the admitted thumb impression that is Ex.D13letter. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff disputed the thumb impression of Smt.Lingamma, grandmother on Ex.D2-Will and contended that it is a concocted document. As such, it requires opinion of the expert by comparing admitted thumb impression with the disputed thumb impression on Ex.D2-Will. The said application was opposed by the defendant-petitioner herein. The said application is made at belated stage and further stating that there are already sufficient materials to decide the lis between the parties before the Trial Court. The trial Court under impugned order allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant is before this Court in this petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. The defendants claims his right through the Will whereas, the plaintiff disputed the Will and thumb impression on Ex.D2-Will. 6. The Trial Court noticed that except DW.3 who is attesting witness, no other witnesses are examined in support of Ex.D2-Will. Further, it is also observed that the entire issue in the suit depends on Ex.D2-Will. As such, the Trial Court thought it fit to refer to the disputed Ex.D2-Will for comparison of thumb impression with admitted document in Ex.D13. I find no error in the order passed by the Trial Court. Moreover, the impugned order in no way prejudices defendant No.5 who is the petitioner herein. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands rejected.