POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. - (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. It goes without saying that the suit is still pending and the instant petition is once again challenging the order passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, dated 27th July, 2010, whereby the application to get the signature of the testator examined by the hand writing expert was refused. The refusal by the court below was for the reasons that the evidence was closed. The Petitioner had already got the two Saha sisters examined as witnesses after payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/within a period of 30 days. However, since the matter was to be disposed of by 30th December, 2010, per direction of this Court in the previous writ application, the Court was not inclined to grant the said liberty. Both the counsels have vehemently argued for and against the order. A heavy onus evidently lies on the shoulders of the Plaintiffs to substantiate the will by means of cogent evidence and therefore, if at all there was any request to adduce expert evidence, it should have been given at the behest of the Plaintiffs. All these points argued by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs for adducing evidence, after closure of the evidence in the suit which is coming up one by one is with a view to delay the proceeding. It is true that the matter is pending since 1998 and it is the court who has to assess the validity of the will which is under challenge in the suit on the basis of evidence and therefore, I am not inclined to grant relief claimed by the Petitioner/Defendants at this stage. A lot of time has already elapsed. 30th December, 2010 is also gone by and therefore in the facts and circumstances I am not inclined to grant relief in the instant application whatsoever. The Plaintiff has yet to substantiate his claim on the basis of cogent evidence.
(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.;