ANJU TYAGI Vs. CIVIL JUDGE S D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order-dated 31.05.2011 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar in Original Suit No.93 of 1999 Smt. Kailashwati Vs. Smt. Sunita and others , by which the application of the petitioners seeking permission to file report of finger print expert, in rebuttal/counter of the report filed at the behest of defendant nos.1 and 2 has been rejected.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that one Smt. Kailashwati had filed Original Suit No.93 of 1999 Smt. Kailashwati Vs. Smt. Sunita and others in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar for prohibitory injunction inter-alia on the ground that she got married to Shri Sewa Ram Tyagi in June, 1954, who had executed a registered Will dated 04.09.1988 in her favour. During the pendency of the case, Smt. 2 Kailashwati expired on 14.08.2006. During her lifetime, she executed a Will dated 07.06.2006. The petitioners filed substitution application for getting substituted in place of deceased Smt. Kailashwati. The same was contested by the respondent nos.2 & 3. On the objection of the respondent nos.2 & 3, the Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee passed an order on 16.01.2009 to the effect that the appellants (petitioners) should prove the Will beyond suspicion and further ordered to produce the attesting witnesses of Will.

(3.) In compliance of the Court s order dated 16.01.2009, the petitioner appeared as a witness, propounder of a Will, whose evidence was recorded on 06.03.2009, with whom a detailed cross-examination was conducted. One of the attesting witness of Will, Shri Umesh, was also produced as a witness on 22.07.2009, who proved the Will as required under Section 68 of The Evidence Act read with Section 63 of The Indian Succession Act. The Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee after hearing the parties, passed an order on 12.10.2009, wherein the Will was accepted and the substitution application was allowed on the basis of Will executed by Smt. Kailashwati. The said order was not challenged by respondent nos.3 & 4.