PUSHPLATA PRASAD Vs. AMRITANSHU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Ayush, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dtd. 4/1/2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Probate Case No. 09 of 2017 contained in Annexure-5, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 11 of the CPC for grant of leave to issue a commission for examination and cross-examination of petitioner/opposite party no.5 at her residence on account of serious illness, has been rejected by the learned Court.

(3.) Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 1/plaintiff instituted a suit for grant of Probate under Sec. 272 read with Sec. 289 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of the learned Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being Probate Case No. 09 of 2017 with respect to the alleged Will dtd. 21/6/2006 which has been executed by the deceased Testator, namely, Durga Prasad in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the properties mentioned in Schedule-A to E of the petition and prayer was made for the grant of aforementioned properties in favour of the petitioner. He submits that after notice, opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 5 jointly filed their show-cause and the matter proceeded further and the evidences have been adduced on behalf of the opposite party no. 1/ plaintiff. He further submits that the plaintiff's evidence has been closed and, thereafter, the matter was running for the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/opposite party no.5 and the chief was filed in August, 2024 and for cross-examination the prayer was made by filing a petition before the learned Court to constitute a commission for examination and cross-examination of the petitioner herein at her residence, which has been rejected by the learned Court. He also submits that the petitioner is an aged lady and she is suffering from several ailments and in view of that, said petition has been filed by the petitioner, however, the learned Court has rejected the said petition. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.