Allahabad High Court
Madhuri Devi vs Uma Shankar And 2 Others on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147859
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4962 of 2023
Petitioner :- Madhuri Devi
Respondent :- Uma Shankar And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Shri Vijay Singh Chauhan (AOR No.A/V 0622/2023), holding of Shri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks an adjournment.
2. As evident from the order-sheet, the case has already been adjourned once. As such, request for adjournment is denied.
3. Heard Shri Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
4. By this petition, the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ist, Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No.3 of 2021 has been challenged, whereby the application paper no.31-Ga was rejected.
5. It appears that the respondent no.3-Brij Keshar Singh filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 26.11.2001 that was executed by him. The petitioner was the defendant no.5 in the suit who, it is stated, is a share-holder in the property in question that was transferred through the aforesaid sale-deed dated 26.11.2001. The suit came to be dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 23.12.2020. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, an application was filed by him, being paper no.31-Ga for obtaining the sample signature of the marginal witness of the sale-deed, namely Devbrat Singh, and to send the same for the opinion of an expert. By the impugned order, the appellate court, while rejecting the aforesaid application paper no.31-Ga, has observed as follows:-
"???? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????/???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? 50? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????-8 ?????? ???????? 26.11.2001 ??? ?? ??????? ? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ?????? ??, ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?????????/???? ?? ????????? ???? 50? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?????????/???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ? 244 ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? (???????? ???????) ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????????/ ????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? 33? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????/???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??0-8 ?????? ?????? 26.11.2001 ??? ?? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? 27.11.2001 ?? ??? ??0-2 ????? ??0-2513 ????? 300-301 ??????? ??0-4218 ?? ??? ??, ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? 19.10.2013 ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???? / ????????? ?????? ??? ???????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????????/???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ????????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??????, ???????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????????? / ???? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? 31? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ???? 31? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???"
6. No illegality in the impugned order could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only thing that is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 04.02.2022, the lawyers of the District Court were on strike and there was a request made by the Bar Association for passing no adverse orders on that day and, therefore, the order ought not to have been passed. This is a specious ground to seek interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, the plaintiff himself has not approached the Court, but rather a proforma-defendant, who alleges to have a right, has approached the Court. Be that as it may, the appellate court has observed that for summoning the witness, Devbrat Singh, an application was moved before the trial court which was dismissed by the order dated 19.10.2013 against which the plaintiff-appellant neither file any revision, appeal or any other petition nor has challenged the order in the grounds of appeal. It has further been noted that the plaintiff-appellant had submitted the testimony of Devbrat Singh by way of an affidavit in which the witness had not denied his signature and thumb impression on the document. The appellate court observed that the court has got no jurisdiction to collect evidence. The application was, accordingly, rejected.
8. Under the facts and circumstances, no cause for interference is made out in the petition.
9. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2023
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
