JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and no one has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to Khata No. 125 situated at Gram Mohanpur, Pargana Dewa, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki, which was recorded in the name of Shyam Narayan @ Makka Lal and afer the death of Shyam Narayan the land came to be recorded in the name of his wife Badki. It is stated that Badki, wife of Shyam Narayan had executed a Will in favour of Avadh Bihari, Ram Het, Kishan Bihari, Brij Bihari sons of Deo Bux as well as the petitioner- Smt. Madhuri Devi. 3. It has been submitted that with regard to the succession of the said land proceedings under 9-A (2) are still pending before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner has all along assailed the validity of the Will executed by Badki on 13.2.1981. Initially the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9848 of 1989, which was dismissed by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 28.03.1990. For the sake of convenience the order passed by this Court is quoted herein below:- " This petition arises from mutation proceedings. It appears that on the death of Smt. Barabanki mutation proceedings have started. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Smt. Barabanki and has sought mutation of her name on the basis of succession. Opposite parties 4 to 7 have claimed mutation on the basis of will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Barabanki. The will set up by opposite parties 4 to 4 is not admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner's case appears to be that the alleged will is a forged document. The petitioner made an application before the Additional Tahsildar, Nawabganj, Barabanki seeking permission to bring expert evidence on record regarding the thumb impressions contained on the will filed by opposite parties 4 to 7. This application has been rejected by the Additional Tehsildar with the following observations- "there is no provision for experts opinion." Against the order of Additional Tahsildar, the applicant preferred revision before the Collector who rejected the same by order dated 19.7.1989. This application has been rejected by the Additional Tehsildar with the following observations- "there is no provision for experts opinion." Against the order of Additional Tahsildar, the applicant preferred revision before the Collector who rejected the same by order dated 19.7.1989. The Board of Revenue has also rejected the petitioner's revision through order dated 7.10.1989. In paragraph 4 of its order the Board of Revenue has observed that mutation proceedings are of fiscal and summary nature and are subject to decision in a regular suit. With this observation of the Board of Revenue no exception can be taken. However, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage because the petition arises from an interlocutory order. If opposite parties 4 to 7 fail to substantiate the will petitioner will have no cause for grievance against the impugned orders. In view of the above the petition is dismissed." 4. It has been submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by this Court observing that only application of the petitioner for obtaining expert opinion with regard to the thumb impression of the testator was rejected which was an interlocutory order and therefore considering that the matter was still pending consideration before the revisional authority, this Court has declined to interfere in the matter. 5. It has been been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid dispute regarding the validity of the Will has been raised by the petitioner by filing suit under Section 229 B, which also stood abated on commencement of the consolidation proceedings. Subsequently before the Consolidation Officer also the petitioner had filed an application for obtaining expert evidence with regard to the thumb impression of the testator, namely, Smt. Badki. The said application has been rejected by means of the order dated 12.6.2017. Against the said order the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has also been rejected by means of order dated 7.10.2017. The revisional authority has noticed the fact that original copy of the Will is not available on record. 6. The question gaining the attention of this Court is with regard to the application of the petitioner for obtaining the expert opinion with regard tot he thumb impression of Smt. Badki, who has executed a Will on 13.2.1981. The revisional authority has noticed the fact that original copy of the Will is not available on record. 6. The question gaining the attention of this Court is with regard to the application of the petitioner for obtaining the expert opinion with regard tot he thumb impression of Smt. Badki, who has executed a Will on 13.2.1981. The manner in which a Will can be proved in the Court, has been provided in Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The necessary ingredients for a Will provided under Section 63 of the Succession Act where it is provided that the testator shall sign or affix some mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his directions and the Will shall be attested by two and more witnesses each of whom had seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will. The manner in which such a Will has to be proved in the court of competent jurisdiction is provided under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, where it is provided that such a document, which is required to be attested shall not be used as an evidence until one of the attesting witnesses at least has been called for the purpose of proving it execution, if the attesting witnesses are alive and careful of keeping evidence. 7. Accordingly the Will has to be proved by the person who has relied/produced the Will and for which purposes in case the attesting witnesses alive, same has to be produced, who has to testify the Will was signed by testator in his presence. 8. It is only when sufficient doubt can be created in the mind of the trial court by the petitioner with regard to the validity of the Will only then provision of Section 73 of the Evidence Act can be invoked by the petitioner and the discretion of the trial court. In case the trial court is of the opinion that there is certain doubts with regard to the signature of the testator only then the question arises for comparison of the signature or any other mark affixed by the testator on the said Will. 9. In case the trial court is of the opinion that there is certain doubts with regard to the signature of the testator only then the question arises for comparison of the signature or any other mark affixed by the testator on the said Will. 9. It is noticed that in the present case the very threshold has also not been crossed, in as much as, the attesting witnesses have not been examined by the trial court nor have been produced by the private respondents. It is only after the attesting witnesses are examined the question has arisen with regard to the verification of the signatures/ thumb impressions in case the petitioner can successfully indicate that the same are doubtful. 10. Accordingly I find that the repeated applications of the petitioner before the various authorities at this stage are premature and certainly at the appropriate stage such applications can be adequately considered. 11. I find that the matter is still pending before the Consolidation Officer and a similar pryaer has been made by the petitioner before this Court, was also rejected on 28.3.1990 in mutation proceedings. 12. In light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned in the present petition, therefore the present petition is dismissed. However, the liberty is granted tot he petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Consolidation Officer for production of the original Will on record. Liberty is further granted that after the respondents have adduced their evidence to prove the Will the petitioner at liberty to move appropriate application for obtaining expert opinion on the signatures thereon in accordance with law.. 13. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed.