Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 787 (RAJ)

Shambhoo Lal v. Ladi

2016-05-30

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 1.10.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C. for bringing on record the original Will has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act') for grant of succession certificate based on Will dated 11.5.2007. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for bringing on record the original Will. It was submitted that the copy of the Will was filed along with the proceedings and the original Will was lying with the Revenue Courts where proceedings were pending and now as the same is available, the same be taken on record. Though no reply to the application was filed by the respondent, the application was opposed. 4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plea regarding obtaining of the Will from revenue proceedings appears to be without any basis, earlier also application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C. which was allowed and repeated applications are being filed apparently for delaying the proceedings and consequently rejected the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, there was no dispute about the document, inasmuch as, the petitioner had filed copy of Will along with the proceedings. The mere fact that earlier petitioner has filed another application under Order 7, Rule 14 C.P.C. which was accepted by the trial court, cannot be a reason for rejection of the present application and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that absolutely vague application was filed, no indication was given as to in which revenue proceedings the petitioner produced the said Will, in fact no revenue proceedings were pending. The alleged Will bears the same date that of the death of alleged executant and on its face, the same is a forged document and therefore, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. The alleged Will bears the same date that of the death of alleged executant and on its face, the same is a forged document and therefore, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the present proceedings for grant of succession certificate have been initiated on the basis of Will dated 11.5.2007 said to have been executed by deceased Shankar Lal in favour of the petitioner. Along with the proceedings, a copy of the alleged Will was produced and thereafter, the proceedings remained pending; evidence of the petitioner is yet to be recorded by the trial court and the petitioner initially filed application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for leading secondary evidence qua the Will on account of non-availability of the Will. Where after, the present application was filed to place on record the original Will based on the ground that earlier the same was not available having been filed in some revenue proceedings. 9. So far as the existence of the document is concerned, the petitioner had based his case on the Will and had produced a copy of the said Will also along with the proceedings and it is not disputed that the original now sought to be produced is not different from the copy which was filed along with the proceedings. 10. In view thereof, apparently, the document sought to be produced has been/is the basis of filing of the suit and in those circumstances, the trial court should have accepted the application filed by the petitioner. 11. The fact that the matter is pending since 2007 and the application was filed in the year 2014 clearly indicates that the matter is not being proceeded in a proper manner and the same is getting adjourned apparently on account of repeated applications being filed by the petitioner/parties. 12. In those circumstances, though the application filed by the petitioner is allowed. However, it would be required of the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent defendant No.1. On payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, the document shall be taken on record by the trial court and the trial court shall proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible. 13. However, it would be required of the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent defendant No.1. On payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, the document shall be taken on record by the trial court and the trial court shall proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 1.10.2014 is set-aside. The document is directed to be taken on record on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of five weeks from the date a certified copy of this order be placed before the trial court.