Dismissed

Smt Phool Begum and Others v. Smt. Shafiqunisha

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024CLRE/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision challenging the trial court's rejection of an application for a fresh handwriting expert report in a property suit involving a will. The court held that the appellants delayed nearly 10 years in raising objections, with no cogent reasons provided, therefore no grounds for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

Application for fresh handwriting expert report rejected; revision dismissed with no grounds for interference.

Smt Phool Begum and Others vs Smt. Shafiqunisha — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19752

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 12 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Phool Begum And Others Opposite Party :- Smt. Shafiqunisha Counsel for Revisionist :- Shravan Kumar Upadhyay,Phool Chandra Mishra,Poorendu Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 75 of 2002 in re: Safiqunnisha vs Gulam Sabir and others by which the Application No. C-132 which was an application filed by the revisionists herein praying for rejection of earlier report of handwriting expert and calling for a fresh report, has been rejected.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that on 19.08.2001 Shri Mohd. Shafi had executed a will deed in favour of Shri Mohd Jabir. Md Jabir died on 10.06.2003. Prior to his death, Smt Safiqunnisha i.e. the respondent filed a Regular Suit No. 75 of 2002 in re: Safiqunnisha vs Gulam Sabir and others for permanent injunction and praying for declaration of the will dated 19.08.2001 to be forged, fictitious and being null and void.

¶9

It is contended that despite Shri Md Jabir having died in June 2003 no efforts were made by the respondent herein for substitution of the legal heirs. The plaintiff filed an application for having the signatures on the will to be verified by a handwriting expert which has been directed by the learned trial

¶10

court vide the order dated 02.01.2014, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the revision which was submitted on 23.01.2014. Subsequent thereto the revisionist filed an application numbered as C-132 in January 2024 for rejection of the earlier report submitted by the handwriting expert and for calling for a fresh handwriting expert report which has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 23.01.2024.

¶11

Raising a challenge to the said order, the instant revision has been filed.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the order dated 02.01.2014 was passed by learned trial court without hearing the revisionists herein and thus no cognizance can be placed on the handwriting expert report which has been submitted on the basis of order dated 02.01.2014. He further states that in this regard the revisionists filed an application for another handwriting expert which has been rejected summarily vide the order impugned and hence the revision.

¶13

Responding to that, Shri Verma, learned counsel for the respondent argues that learned trial court has specifically observed while passing the order dated 23.01.2024 that despite the order dated 02.01.2014 having been passed way back, no effort was made by the revisionists herein to file an application for recall of the said order.

¶14

It is also contended that the revisionists herein repeatedly appeared before learned trial court but they did not file any application for recall of the said order. It is also stated that the handwriting expert is subject to cross and the defendants/revisionists herein have a right to cross at the suitable stage as such the court has correctly proceeded to reject the application filed by the revisionists.

¶15

Shri Verma also contends that subsequent thereto through an order dated 27.02.2024, learned trial court has also rejected the application C-135 which has been filed by the revisionists raising objections with regard to the report of the handwriting expert dated 23.01.2014 which fact has been concealed while filing the instant revision.

¶16

Shri Verma thus contends that the only intention of the revisionists herein is to somehow or the other delay the matter before the learned trial court in as much as there is unexplained delay of approximately 10 years from the order being passed by learned trial court requiring a report of handwriting expert which order was passed in January 2014 and the respondent having filed the application for a fresh handwriting expert report to be called for which application has been filed in January 2024 and thus the very conduct of the revisionists indicates the dilatory tactics on their part in order to somehow or the other prolong the litigation before learned trial court.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

From a perusal of record and the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the contenting parties it emerges that a will dated 19.08.2001 was executed by Shri Mohd Safi in favor of Shri Mohd Jabir. A suit was filed in the year 2002 by the wife of the executant namely Md Safi praying for permanent injunction and for declaration of the said will as being forged and fictitious. During pendency of suit, Shri Md Jabir died. His legal heirs have been substituted as defendants in the said suit and who are the revisionists herein.

¶19

Learned trial court, upon an application being filed by the plaintiff for calling for a handwriting expert report, passed an

¶20

order dated 02.01.2014 directing for handwriting expert report to be submitted which in fact has been submitted on 23.01.2014. Despite the revisionists having put in appearance before learned trial court after their substitution, no efforts were made by them for a period of almost 10 years for either filing their objections to the said handwriting expert report or even for recall of the order dated 02.01.2014. It is only after a period of 10 years that an application numbered as C-132 has been filed on 04.01.2024 praying for rejection of the handwriting experts report and for calling for a fresh inspection report. The said application has been rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 23.01.2024 by specifically recording that despite sufficient opportunities having been given to the defendants / revisionists herein, no objections to the said report or any application for recall of the order dated 02.01.2014 has been filed by them and further whatever proceedings have been done by the handwriting experts is subject to cross and the defendants have a right to cross it at a suitable stage. Considering this learned trial court has rejected the application for the revisionists.

¶21

Perusal of order impugned dated 23.01.2024 would indicate that cogent reasons have been recorded by learned trial court for rejecting the application of the revisionist herein for rejection of earlier handwriting expert report and calling for a fresh report.

¶22

No reasons emerge from perusal of the said application or from the pleading on record as to why it took the revisionists (defendants) almost 10 years to file an application for either a fresh report of the handwriting expert or in not having filed any objection to the handwriting expert report dated 23.01.2014 or for that matter having filed an application for recall of the order dated 02.01.2014.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid, no grounds are found by this Court to interfere with the order dated 23.01.2024.

¶24

The revision is dismissed .

¶25

Order Date :- 5.3.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt Phool Begum and Others v. Smt. Shafiqunisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Phool Begum and Others v. Smt. Shafiqunisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt.Chandra Kali W/O Sri Sarju Prasad Vs the Chief Revenue Officer/Additional Collector Pratapgarh

Vimlesh Kumar Dixit Vs Additional District Collector/Rent Authority, District-Hardoi and 3 Others

Ranveer Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.D.M. Revenue Lucknow and 4 Others

Rama Kant Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Gopal Goyal Objection Filed Vs Commissioner Devi Patan and 2 Ors.

Ram Khelawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare, Lucknow and 3 Others