← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/1688/2014dismissed

Ashok Kumar Mahto And ORS v. Smt. Sunaina Devi And ORS

2015-12-10Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1688 of 2014 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Mahto & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Smt. Sunaina Devi & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 10-12-2015 1.

Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, for the defendant petitioner.

2.

By the impugned order, the Court below has only directed that the left thumb impression of Kishori Devi may be taken for comparison with the disputed sale deed allegedly executed by Kishori Devi in favour of the petitioner. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Kishori Devi, vendor of the petitioner, who is party, never appeared in the Court nor she ever filed written statement but she has been examined as witness which is illegal. She illegally in her evidence denied to have executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner which is not admissible at all. On belated stage, the Court below by the impugned order has directed to send the left thumb impression of Kishori Devi occurring in the sale deed for

Patna High Court CWJC No.1688 of 2014 (2) dt.10-12-2015 2/2 comparison and if comparison is made according to the impugned order, the petitioner shall be greatly prejudiced. 4.

According to the plaintiff, the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Kihsori Devi in favour of the petitioner is a forged document and it was not executed by Kishori Devi. Kishori Devi also in her evidence denied to have executed the sale deed. However, the argument of the petitioner is that the evidence of Kishori Devi is inadmissible because it is made by her after selling the property in collusion with the plaintiff. 5.

In such circumstances when the left thumb impression on the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is disputed, the Court has rightly by the impugned order directed to compare. In such circumstances, in supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be interfered with and thus this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/- U T