DIPAK BACHELOR Vs. MARY BACHELOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents.

(2.) IT appears that this is the third attempt by way of writ application under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The suit was instituted in the year 1998 as a probate case which was converted into a title suit and thereafter the proceedings commenced on the basis of the will, Ahmad Khan,Nurat Parween,Abdul Rahman Khan Versus State Of Jharkhand which the Plaintiff claims to have executed by the testator in his favour. Written Statement was filed and the will was challenged and the signature thereon was also challenged by the Defendant that it was forged and not of the testator as claimed by the Defendant. Previously, the writ application being W.P.(C) No.1350 of 2008 [Dipak Bachelor and Ors. V/s. Mary Bachelor and Anr.] was preferred and the writ application was finally disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2010, whereby the Defendants were permitted to examine their witnesses, namely, Geeta Saha and Reeta Saha, with a cost of Rs. 1,000/ - only. It was further directed that the Petitioners will examine their witnesses within a period of 30 days from the date of order. The trial court was directed to dispose of the Title Suit No. 1 of 2000 (converted from Probate Case No. 17 of 1998) as expeditiously as possible on or before 30th December, 2010, in accordance with law and evidence on record.

(3.) THE writ application is accordingly dismissed. The direction of this Court reiterated that the suit should be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date, a certified copy of the order is produced.