Rameshwari @ Bogli Daughter Of ... vs Gopal Son Of Banshidhar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1571 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21345/2018
Rameshwari @ Bogli Daughter of Dhanna Ram, aged about 75
years, resident of Mandoli, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan
                                                                ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. Gopal Son of Banshidhar alleged adopted son of Shiv Lal @
Sheonarayan resident of Khandu, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
2.    Banshidhar son of Mangilal resident of Khandu, Tehsil
Dataramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
3.      Jagdish son Balluram resident of Khandu, Tehsil
Dataramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

                                                                 Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich, through V.C.

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
                            Order

Judgment Reserved on                                   07.02.2022
Judgment Pronounced on                                 16.02.2022

1. Present writ petition is filed against the order dated

23.07.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Dataramgarh, District

Sikar in Civil Suit No.54/2015 by which application filed by the

petitioner for summoning the original record for comparing the

signature and thumb impression against the document, was

rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has knocked the door of

this court under Article 227. The background of the case is that

petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual

injunction and for declaring the alleged Will as null and void which

was alleged to be executed by her father in favour of the

respondents.

(2 of 3) [CW-21345/2018]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

framing of the issues when the evidence started, the defendant

filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 for taking on record the

documents qua temporary injunction bearing No.41/89 wherein

signatures of complainant petitioner, her mother and all the

necessary parties and thumb impression were present. That

defendant's application was allowed vide order dated 06.05.2017.

Petitioner filed an application for summoning the original record

from the concerned office and the court directed that the

signatures of the petitioner and that of the father of the petitioner

be compared. It was further stated by the petitioner that the

aforesaid documents are forged documents and have never been

signed by the petitioner and her father and therefore, the same

are required to be summoned in original and be sent for

examination/inspection by the expert.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants

supported the contention of the learned court below and

submitted that the present application has been filed with an

ulterior motive and the Will in question, in a registered Will which

should be believed and the documents which are called in question

by the petitioner are public documents and their genuinity/bona

fide can be questioned, only if cogent and reliable evidence is

produced by the plaintiff and in the discretion of the court, the

same may be sent for opinion of an expert.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused

the records of the case and gone through the impugned order in

question. Article 227 can be invoked against the interim orders of

the court below only when there is a manifest error or the findings

are perverse. In the case in hand, the requisite documents which

(3 of 3) [CW-21345/2018]

are required to be summoned for their original verification public

documents, Will in question is a registered Will and for the reasons

stated in the impugned order, this court is not inclined to interfere.

5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

6. All pending applications are also disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

JKP/46

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)