Dismissed

Anju Devi Alias Anju Murmu v. Kunwar Devi

Jharkhand HC1 Feb 2021WPC/2387/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting an application for forensic examination of a marriage card in a succession case. The High Court held there was no error in the lower court's observation that the examination had no direct bearing on the case's merit, and dismissed the petition, leaving the veracity test for the trial.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without interference with the impugned order dated 20.02.2019.

Anju Devi Alias Anju Murmu Vs Kunwar Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2387 of 2019

¶3

Anju Devi @ Anju Murmu

¶4

Baby Preety Kumari … … Petitioners Versus

¶5

Kunwar Devi

¶6

Prem Prakash

¶7

Pranita Kumari

¶8

Shahdeo Mahto

¶9

Ram Dayal Mahto

¶10

Jaleshwar Mahto

¶11

Jatruddin Ansari … … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Siddhartha Jyoti Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : -----

¶14

Order No. 07 Dated: 01.02.2021

¶15

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, whereby an application dated 04.10.2018 filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC in Succession Case No. 110 of 2015 has been rejected with an observation that sending of marriage card for examination by the printing expert has no direct bearing on the merit of the case.

¶17

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition including the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned court below.

¶18

3. The petitioner no. 1 – Anju Devi appears to have filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC in Succession Case No. 110 of 2015 for sending the marriage card of Bhim Mahto and Kunwar Devi for its examination by the printing expert as according to her, the said marriage card is a manufactured one which has been filed in the said case only to mislead the court. The learned court below while considering the said application filed by the petitioner no. 1 has observed in the impugned order that sending the marriage

¶19

¶20

card for examination by the printing expert has no direct bearing on the merit of the case and no useful purpose is going to be served in adjudicating the real lis between the parties.

¶21

4. I find no error in the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned court below in disallowing the petitioners’ said application. It is for the trial court to see as to whether the request of the petitioners for sending the marriage card of Bhim Mahto and Kunwar Devi for examination by a printing expert has any relevance for deciding the real dispute between the parties on the basis of available facts on record. Otherwise also, the petitioners shall have the opportunity of testing the veracity of said marriage card during the trial of the pending case.

¶22

5. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.02.2019. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Manish

Anju Devi Alias Anju Murmu v. Kunwar Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Devi Alias Anju Murmu v. Kunwar Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleha Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ms Dipanshu Promoter and Builders Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Namely Vikas Kumar Sanehi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shanti Hari Realty through Its Partner Uday Shankar Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Civil Aviation

Kedar Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Sanjay Stone Chips through Its Proprietor Sanjay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand