JUDGMENT : The original petition is filed challenging the order in I.A No.1/2022 in O.S 487/2010 (Ext.P7) of the Court of the Munsiff, Taliparamba. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of Ext.P6 application filed by them to send Ext.P3 'Will' dated 16.12.2009 executed by Olikkal Pallath Augusty, for expert opinion to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The petitioners have contended that the court below has erred in dismissing Ext.P6 application by the impugned Ext.P7 order. Hence the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri. V.T. Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 4. It is an undisputed fact that the 'Will' was executed by Olikkal Pallath Augusty on 16.12.2009. On the request made by the petitioners, the 'Will' was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Police Department, Government of Kerala, Kannur, who by Ext.P5 report dated 26.12.2017 concluded that in the absence of sufficient standard writings and signatures of the executant, a thorough evaluation of the writing habits of the executant was not possible. Nonetheless, it was observed that with the available evidence, it can be concluded that the writer of the standard writings and signatures marked as 'A1' and 'A2' probably did not write the questioned writings and signatures marked as 'Q1'. 5. Without challenging Ext.P5, the petitioners have after five years preferred Ext.P6 application. 6. The court below, on the basis of the findings in Ext.P5 report which has become final declined to send the 'Will' to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. 7. I have analysed the pleadings and materials on record, particularly Ext.P5 report. It is without assailing Ext.P5 report that the petitioners desire to have get another opinion. It is to be remembered that the suit is of the year 2010. It is well settled that expert evidence is only corroborative in nature. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioners would have to prove the genuineness of the 'will' as provided under the law. I do not find any error or illegality in Ext.P7 order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition fails and is hence dismissed.