Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS by way of this writ petition have challenged order dt. 01.10.2014 passed by District Judge, Sikar (for short 'the Trial Court') whereby application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. filed by them for taking opinion/report of handwriting expert on record has been dismissed. The aforesaid application under Order 8 Rule 1 was filed by the petitioners -non -applicants in proceedings initiated on an application by Respondent No. 1 and 2 under 278 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act wherein it was contended by the applicants -Respondents No. 1 and 2 that deceased Banwari Lal bequeathed his 1/6th share of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 272, 273, 274, 275 and 278 total five Khasras admeasuring 12.47 hectares and one residential premise (Guwadi) in their favour, except one Bigha land. Remaining one Bigha land was bequeathed in favour of the Respondent No. 12, Shiv Mandir. The Will was alleged to have been executed in presence of Sanwar Mal Jangid, Shiv Prasad Sharma and Shishupal Sharma.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court was wholly unjustified in refusing to take opinion/report of the handwriting expert on record which was very necessary for effective and final decision of the controversy. It is argued that an F.I.R. was registered by Petitioner No. 1 at Police Station Laxmangarh against Respondent No. 1 and 2. During investigation of the said FIR, Will was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, but the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory indicated that thumb impression of the deceased could not be matched as the same was not legible. Since, report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur was not conclusive, the petitioner No. 1 obtained report of handwriting expert Renu Kumari. The petitioners were prepared to produce handwriting expert Renu Kumari in evidence to prove the report. It is contended that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application on the premise that such report cannot be taken on record in view of the earlier report dt. 28.09.2013 given by Forensic Science Laboratory as well as in view of the order dt. 27.08.2013 passed by the Trial Court by which an application filed by Petitioner No. 2 -non -applicant, Mukesh for getting the report of the handwriting expert was rejected, which order was upheld by Co -ordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dt. 20.05.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16910/2013 (Mukesh Kumar vs. Santosh & Others). Perusal of the earlier order dt. 27.08.2013 passed by the Trial Court indicates that similar application was moved by Mukesh Kumar, Petitioner No. 2 herein alleging that the Will does not carry the thumb impression of the deceased Banwari Lal and that the Will has been forged, therefore, it may be sent for opinion of handwriting expert at his expenses. Learned Trial Court rejected that application on the premise that the Will was already sent to Forensic Science Laboratory whose report has been received according to which thumb impression of deceased Banwari Lal on the Will could not be compared with similar thumb impression contained on the summon sent to him because latter thumb impression was not clear enough and, therefore, another report of handwriting expert was not necessary. Mukesh Kumar, Petitioner No. 2 filed writ petition against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by this Court vide order dt. 20.05.2014 upholding the earlier order passed by the Trial Court. The petitioners thereafter obtained opinion from a private person claiming her to be handwriting expert. Learned Trial Court by impugned order has declined to accept that opinion/report, primarily for the reason that such report was obtained on the basis of photostat copy and not on the basis of original document and it has no evidentiary value. Learned Trial Court also recorded that earlier order was passed by the said Court on 27.08.2013 rejecting similar type of application and that order was upheld by this Court as mentioned hereinabove. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.;