SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 12.06.2018 (annexure-1) passed in Probate Case No.05 of 2006 as well as order dated 13.08.2018 (annxure-4) passed in Revocation Case No.89/2018/Civil Review Application No.89 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi has been challenged, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the opposite party nos.5 to 10 (petitioners herein) to send the signature and thumb impression of the deceased late Lalita Devi to expert for scientific examination has been turned down, the same has been affirmed by Reviewing Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that a probate case is going being Probate Case No.05 of 2016, wherein the respondents have filed a petition on 16.11.2011 for a direction to produce any authentic document containing the signature of late Lalita Devi, so that the same may be sent to expert for scientific examination along with the alleged disputed signature available on the Will dated 23.06.1990 (Exhibit-8).
(3.) The Probate petitioner/respondents herein, has filed rejoinder and submitted that there is no any other signature of late Lalita Devi on any other authentic document and after hearing the parties, the Court below has passed an order on 21.12.2011 observing therein that if any such document is brought by the probate petitioner, an adverse inference may be taken by the Court. It is further the case of the opposite party nos.5 to 10 that they obtained old age pension register from Circle Officer, Panki under Right To Information Act vide memo no.128 dated 10.05.2012, which shows that there is thumb impression of late Lalita Devi and probate petitioner has also filed old age pension register obtained under the Right To Information Act which shows that deceased late Lalita Devi used to receive old pension from Panki Circle by putting her signature, therefore, a petition was filed by opposite party nos.5 to 10 and prayed to pass an order for sending the aforesaid signature and thumb impression to expert for opinion in terms of petition dated 16.11.2011. Another petition was filed on 16.01.2016 on behalf of opposite party nos.5 to 10, praying therein that earlier petition was filed on behalf of the probate petitioner disclosing the document of thumb impression obtained under Right To Information Act , subsequently, they have filed another document obtained under Right To Information Act issued by the same authority bearing signature of late Lalita Devi dated 25.06.2012 which appears to be contradictory and as such appropriate direction may be passed for personal appearance of the Circle Officer, Panki. The said application was responded by the petitioner/respondent which the trial Court has rejected vide order dated 12.06.2018, against which review has been preferred being Review Application No.89 of 2018 but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 13.08.2018, against both these orders, this writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ;