Most. Manju Devi v. Sri Dharmveer Prasad And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.839 of 2018 ====================================================== Most. Manju Devi Wife of Late Ashok Sao @ Late Ashok Kumar, Resident of Mauja Girdharpur Basti, P.O.- Harnaut, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda at present resident of Gonama Road, Ram Janki Nagar, Harnaut, P.O. and P.S.- Harnaut District Nalanda as Well as its resident of Karam Chauk Vidyanagar West Doranda, Ranchi Jharkhand.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Sri Dharmveer Prasad, Son of Sri Sita Ram Singh, Resident of VillageDihra, P.O.- Jagarpur, P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 2.

Ajay Kumar, Son of Late Ashok Sao, 3.

Mama Devi, Daughter of Late Ashok Sao, 2 and 3 are resident of Girdharpur Basti, P.O. and P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda at present resident of Gonama Road Ram Janki Nagar, Harnaut, P.S. and P.O.- Harnaut District- Nalanda. 4.

Vikki Devi, Wife of Santosh Kumar, Resident of Bakho Pinda Barah, P.O. Sara P.S.- Belchi, District- Patna.

5.

Niva Kumari, 6.

Sancha Kumari, 7.

Neha Kumari, 5 to 7 are daughters of Late Ashok Sao, Resident of Girdharpur, P.O., P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-08-2022 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Sub Judge-V, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, vide order, dated 30.11.2017, passed in Title Suit No. 195 of 2009, on an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, directed for the verification of signature of the husband of the petitioner-defendant by the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2018(2) dt.03-08-2022 2/2 expert.

According to the petitioner, though the petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, dated 01.09.2016 was served upon the petitioner-defendant and rejoinder to the same was also filed, but the said petition was not actually filed in the Court. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, dated 30.11.2017. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has considered the petition, dated 01.09.2016, filed by the plaintiffrespondent no. 1 and the objection upon that petition, dated 09.12.2016 filed by the petitioner-defendant and passed the order directing for verification/comparison of the signature of the husband of the petitioner-defendant by the expert. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable and the same is rejected. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √