A. K. YOG, J. The case was listed yesterday. I heard it in part. That day also learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S. K. Verma, unwillingly proceeded with the case. The case was finally heard but on the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to take up the case next day to enable him to make if required, argument in the case, was directed to be listed today. Sri S. K. Verma has sent illness slip. Nobody appeared on his behalf to argue or to mention as a courtesy to the Court. 2. Illness slip, in aforesaid circumstances, is to ensure that Court be compelled to adjourn the case. This is nothing but an abuse of the privilege at the Bar. 3. I proceed to hear the case, particularly in view of vehement protest by Sri Basant Lal Gupta, Advocate Counsel representing Smt. Geeta Devi. He submits that, on one pretext or the other, hearing of the case was adjourned and Court not allowed to proceed because of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Sri Rajendra Prasad, Advocate files Vakalatnama today on behalf of Smt. Kusma Devi. Said Vakalatnama is dated 13-11-2000. There is no explanation as to why it was not filed earlier - to facilitate prompt hearing of the cases. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that one Parmeshwar Deen who was employed in the Government job died and thereafter application for obtaining Succession Certificate by three persons, namely Raj Narain Gaur (present petitioner) claiming to be nephew of the deceased, Smt. Geeta Devi (claiming to be wife of the deceased) and Smt. Kusma Devi making a rival claim (of being widow of the deceased), which were filed and registered as Misc. Case No. 158 of 1995 (filed by Geeta Devi), 107 of 1996 (filed by Kusma Devi) and Misc. Case No. 3 of 1996 (filed by Raj Narain Gaur) with the request to grant a succession certificate. 6. The Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Maleehabad, Lucknow, after parties were afforded opportunity under law and having led their evidence, rejected case No. 158 of 1995 and 107 of 1996 filed by Geeta Devi and Kusma Devi while allowed Misc. Case No. 3 of 1996 (filed by Raj Narain Gaur) with the request to grant a succession certificate. 6. The Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Maleehabad, Lucknow, after parties were afforded opportunity under law and having led their evidence, rejected case No. 158 of 1995 and 107 of 1996 filed by Geeta Devi and Kusma Devi while allowed Misc. Case No. 3 of 1996 filed by Raj Narain Gaur who claimed to be nephew of the deceased Parmeshwar on the finding that neither Geeta Devi nor Kusma Devi succeeded that they were legally wedded wife of the deceased. On the other hand it relied on the will deed on which reliance was placed by Raja Narain Gaur. 7. Being aggrieved Misc. Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1997 (by Geeta Devi) and Misc. Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1997 (by Kusma Devi and others) were filed. The said appeals came up for final hearing before XIII ADJ, Lucknow. 8. The appellate Court after discussing the evidence in appeal appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that Kusma Devi had failed to establish that she was legally wedded wife of the deceased Parmeshwar Deen. Claim of Raj Narain Gaur was also not found proved. 9. The appellate Court took into account the fact that Pass-book in the name of Parmeshwar Deen was found in possession of Smt. Geeta Devi. In paper No. 19 Ga the document issued by District Programme Officer name of the husband of the Geeta Devi was shown as Parmeshwar. Similarly Court noted that in paper No. 20 Ga it is evident that Smt. Geeta Devi faced and convicted for a criminal offence on the charge she killed her daughter and that her husband was Parmeshwar- who was not happy on the birth of a female child. It is evident that Smt. Geeta Devi during trial of criminal case-shown as wife of Parmeshwar. 10. Such an evidence considerably supports the case of Geeta Devi. In that view of the matter the Lower Appellate Court rightly observed that even if it is assumed that Kusma Devi was got married it was not a legal marriage in as much as Geeta Devi, was already a living wife of Parmeshwar. 11. The Lower Appellate Court, as far as Raj Narain, present petitioner is concerned, relied upon an unregistered Will. 11. The Lower Appellate Court, as far as Raj Narain, present petitioner is concerned, relied upon an unregistered Will. Raj Narain has based his claim on the basis of unregistered will. 12. Be that as it may, perusal of the ground contained in the writ petition do not make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India in as much as there is no manifest error apparent on the face of record which has been pointed out. Besides that there is no averment that Court below recorded finding which is perverse. From reading of the writ petition it only shows that petitioner wants to re-appreciate the evidence and wants this Court to work as Appellate Court, which is not permissible in law. 13. Writ petition lacks merit it is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .