Patna High Court - Orders
Bibi Shahjahan Begum @ Bibi Shahjahan vs Md.Monazirul Islam on 8 February, 2012
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20821 of 2011
======================================================
Bibi Shahjahan Begum @ Bibi Shahjahan
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Md.Monazirul Islam
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arjun Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
7 08-02-2012Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This application has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order dated 6.12.2008 passed by Munsif I, Darbhanga in Title Suit No.107 of 1992/Eviction Suit No.7 of 1993 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of a commission for examination of the petitioner herself as witness in the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners filed the application for her examination by commission on the ground that she is pardanashin lady and suffering from different diseases and in support of the disease, the 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.20821 of 2011 (7) dt.08-02-2012 2/3 petitioner also filed medical prescriptions but the learned court below rejected the application on the ground that earlier similar prayer was rejected.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has held that similar prayer was made earlier and by terms of order dated 16.07.2008 considering the materials rejected the prayer. From perusal of the said order dated 16.07.2008, it appears that the court below perused the medical certificate and prescriptions also and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not suffering from such disease so as to come to a conclusion that she is unable to come to court or that in near future, she will not be able to come court and, therefore, rejected the prayer for issuance of commission.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is pardanashin lady. From perusal of the vakalatnama filed in this writ application on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the Advocate received the vakalatnama from the executant herself. In such circumstances, if she can come to Patna for executing vakalatnama, how can it be said that she is a pardanashin lady and she will not be able to come to court for giving evidence. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, no interference can be made in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.20821 of 2011 (7) dt.08-02-2012 3/3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/-