Sulakshna Sharma vs Smt. Meeradevi Katare

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—He is heard on the question of admission.

Petitioner/objector/non-applicant, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.13 passed by the 9th ADJ, Bhopal in MJC No. 23/09, whereby her application filed u/s 45 of the Evidence Act to get examine the signature of deceased Late Praveen Sharma on the alleged Will projected by the present respondent, has been dismissed.

Petitioner''s counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the aforesaid application and the impugned order argued that the petitioner being daughter of said Praveen Sharma, on receiving the information about filing the aforesaid case on the strength of the aforesaid projected Will, filed her objection/written statement and challenged the signature of the deceased over the Will and stated that such Will is forged and fabricated by the respondent. In pendency of the matter, on behalf of the petitioner, the aforesaid application to get examine the signature of the deceased on the aforesaid Will was filed. In view of the pleadings of the petitioner, in the available circumstances, such IA ought to have been allowed by the trial court but the same has been dismissed under the wrong premises holding that in the lack of requisite information about availability of the standard signature of the deceased on record, no fruitful purpose would be served if such application is allowed. In continuation, he said that in any case if the court comes to the conclusion that in the lack of aforesaid requisite information the trial court has rightly dismissed the application then in that circumstance, liberty be extended to the petitioner to file fresh application by mentioning all requisite information including the particulars regarding availability of the standard signature of the deceased and prayed to set aside or modify the impugned order by admitting and allowing this petition.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order. It is apparent from the papers available that there is no any document before the trial court on which any genuine and standard signature of the deceased Praveen Sharma is available. Mere perusal of the aforesaid application, it is apparent that no such information in this regard has been supplied by the present petitioner in the same. So, in the lack of such material particulars in the application, the impugned order passed by the trial court, dismissing the aforesaid application of the petitioner, would not be said to be perverse, contrary or against the propriety of the law and, in such premises, the same does not require any interference at this stage.

But in the available circumstances, I am of the considered view that if the impugned application was dismissed by the trial court on account of lack of particulars or requisite information or for want of availability of standard signature of the deceased than in such circumstance while dismissing the impugned application, a liberty should have been extended to the petitioner to file the fresh application by mentioning all requisite particulars regarding availability of the standard signature of the deceased, the executor of the alleged Will. But such opportunity was not extended to the petitioner so till such extent the impugned order requires some modification for extending such liberty.

In view of the aforesaid, by affirming the impugned order, this petition is disposed of by extending the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application u/s 45 of the Evidence Act by mentioning all requisite facts including the information regarding availability of the standard signature of the deceased Praveen Sharma to get examine such Will and signature from the handwriting expert before the trial court within 15 days from today. Pursuant to it, the trial court is directed that on filing such application within the aforesaid prescribed period, the same be considered and decided on its own merits with justice oriented approach and without influencing from any observation or finding given by such court in the impugned order or by this court in the present order. The petition is disposed of as indicated above. There shall be no order as to the cost.