ANANDIBAI Vs. HEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the merits of the petition and the writ petition is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) This writ petition by the plaintiffs is directed against an interlocutory order dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure-C) passed by the trial court-the Court of the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Belgaum, in the suit in O.S. 316/1994. By the impugned order, the Trial court has held that the certified copy of the Will and the relevant portion of the register of Wills was not admissible as secondary evidence. I have perused the impugned order at Annexure-C. The trial court, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has found that the loss of the original Will was not satisfactorily proved. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the trial court at para 10 of the order impugned herein:

(3.) I have examined the matter in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 AIR(SC) 3044 relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India pertaining to interlocutory orders passed by Courts subordinate to the High Court. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant, interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.