Ravinder Singh vs Darshan Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2016

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravinder Singh vs Darshan Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2016

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indisa has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below'), whereby the court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1872') with a prayer for appointing one Shri Varun Gagneja handwriting expert for examining the signatures of deceased Surjan Singh on the will dated 01.02.1993 and to furnish his report before the court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the court below has grossly erred in passing the impugned order while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Act of 1872. It is contended that the petitioner has submitted the report of the handwriting expert, in which it is concluded that the signatures of deceased Surjan Singh on the will dated 01.02.1993, said to have been executed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, are forged. It is argued that the court below without examining the necessity of the opinion of the handwriting expert in relation to the signatures of deceased Surjan Singh on the will dated 01.02.1993, has illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioner. It is contended that the specific case of the petitioner is before the court below is to the effect that the signatures of deceased Surjan Singh on the will dated 01.02.1993 are forged CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 5256 of 2016 RAVINDER SINGH - VS - DARSHAN SINGH & ORS 3/5 and for that purpose opinion of the export is required, but the court below has refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner for appointing of handwriting expert without giving any justifiable reason. It is contended that the observations of the court below that the petitioner has filed this application with delay only with the intention to prolong the proceedings pending before it, are not based on the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has taken upon itself to examine the signatures on the alleged will, however, the such practices is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 697.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the proceedings before the court below are pending from last eleven years and the petitioner is prolonging the said proceedings by filing different applications and, therefore, the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appointing handwriting expert for the purpose of examining the signatures of deceased Surjan Singh on the will dated 01.02.1993, executed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 5256 of 2016 RAVINDER SINGH - VS - DARSHAN SINGH & ORS 4/5 Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. Nathhi Lal Jain & Anr. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1319.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

The facts which are not in dispute are that the court below has granted probate in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 05.01.2005 in Civil Misc. Case No.32/1994. The petitioner has filed civil suit under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act with a prayer for revocation of probate granted in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide order date 05.01.2005. The suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the court below since 2005.

While rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Act of 1872, the court below has observed that the application filed by the petitioner after a delay of eleven years. The court below has also observed that issue regarding genuineness of the will dated 01.02.1993 has already framed and the same will be decided at the time of final decision of the case.

It is true that normally the court should not take upon itself the task of examining the disputed signatures on a document, however, it is noticed that the court below has already framed issue regarding the genuineness of the will dated 01.02.1993 and at the time of decision of the suit filed by the petitioner if the trial court feels to get the signatures of deceased CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 5256 of 2016 RAVINDER SINGH - VS - DARSHAN SINGH & ORS 5/5 Surjan Singh examined by the expert it can always passed order to this effect.

In the present case, the court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for appointing a particular person as expert for examining the signatures of deceased Surjan Singh on the will dated 01.02.1993, while observing that the petitioner is in knowledge of the will from long time but has filed application after a grate delay.

I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the court below.

In view of the above discussion, I don't find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.

Abhishek 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur