(’ 227/ / Respondent No.1 to 2} Petitioners w. twig No. 1 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR H77 Premanand S/o Late Ghasiram, Aged 36 years, Casté‘— Kolta Gunnidhi S/o Late Ghasiram Bhoy, Aged 32 years, Caste—Kolta’ Khemanidhi S/ o Late Ghasiram Kolta, Aged 27 years, Caste Kolta Kumudini D /o Late Ghasiram Kolta, Aged about 45 years R/o Bhainatura, Dist : Bargarh (Orissa) / 2009 $m§§é£ @mmh Versus ,wzl.’ \f2k—é2, Laxmi Bai Wd/o Ghasiram Kolta, ‘ Aged about 65 years Petitoners 1 to 3 8b 5 are R/o village Lara, Up—Tahsil ~ Pussaur, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh—(C.G.) Resgondents Petitioner \ Shashibhushan Bhoy, S/ o Shri Bhakt Bhoy, Aged about 42 years Bhakt S/ o Ghasi Ram Kolta, Aged about 54 years, Both Caste — Kolta, R/o Village Lara, Up Tahsil — Pussaur, Tahsil State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh), Through ~ Collector Raigarh, Distt. Rajgarh— (C.G.) \and Distt. : Raigarh—(C.G.) ‘1 ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22] OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ p F GHHATTESW§RH .M' SiLikEPUR ME@H Q$URT g ' $mgm 3%igg3: E‘km’me ShrE Jugwcgggi Wrii Féimfmn i,22?§ Nari??? 0%” \lel’fSUS 2a%§ ‘ Wemanand and others Past m ‘8 azmm /’ Sdl— ’Mishia f Prashant Kumar . Judge . 8hashibhushai‘1 Bhoy arm anthers M,._ W '' ’ Premanand and othem ahashibhushan Bhc and atherg Shri wheat Kumar §3ar3dev wunae; for the pet§t§mera Shra Vingd Tekam, Panel iam/yer for the Statelrespondent No.3. L NO (me apgears for respdndenta No.1 and 2. gRgER (Passed on @ Feb’uary‘ 251 G) K i in ihis petition Lander Ariicie 22? of the Consiiiution af India, n; i petiiiie have avaid in quesiian 'iha iagaiiiy, vaikiity and garigiy 9f mis le mp iiie aide? dated 27—”; i-2008 (Amaxure P-i) iiagsed ht; ihé iria Cami i igjeing iheir ap§c>iic>aiican$ zincirar Order 13 Ruig i0 read wiih Sectian ci i5? of ihe Coaia 0i Civi Pi'mcesciure (LANQS) (Annwura P-6) anti i amdai' Seciicm ?’3 (3i ihe iridian Evidence Aci, i572 {i.A.N0.&) {Annéxur Pw5). By iheSe apgiicaiions, the petitionaryciésfendariis a waiiied to surfimun tin“: {amid sf ihemuta’ziar‘a rgigier {$anadhaii e h0 9ai'iii) of ihe year 1986-87 in which at Seriai N0.2?9 arcier datad i3u5~ 2607’ the iiiaimb impre3sion cf cieceaged 3mi. ahardha is availabiia and i0 aiiaw iiiemica ga‘i the sad thumiix impi‘egaim atgamineé by tire iiitgw i ‘1?) t i i i() ‘ mt. $i‘iai'ciiia mi the Wiii daiaad 31 -3-19i§4. rmt xmiit bi; campariiig with tita'thumb imwsagaiim af tha aieaeg$ad (I) i ; \ HIGH CGURT GF GHHAETISGARH AT BRLASPUR $inqie aench: Honbie Shri ,Busiice Prwham Kumar Mighra wm Pemion (22?: No.1??? of 213% Petitioners VerSUS Respondemss y Present: Writ Peiiiion under Article 227 of ihe Con$tiiution of india 2. Plain'iiff $hashibhu3han preferred a suit fov damaration and permanent injunction agairmt defendants No‘1 to 6 on the basis of WIH dated 31 -3~1Q84 executed by deceased $mt. Shafdha. m»—a. , ‘ 3. The defendanm in than wriiien statement denied the mam averé‘nants and stated that the Will is a forged document 4. Dunng nendenoy of the $uit and af€er the examinatmn 9f niaintiff’s witne§se3 was aver, éha $ubject in‘imim appiinatiens Mo‘8 and 9 were nraferraad by ihe ,aresant getitionei'S/d@fena:§ant$ in the iriai £eun. P§aintif£ §n his re§JEy {Annexures P-? and P-8} i0 the gubjec’t inierim‘ appiicatians; $tatea mat g3!ain€iff hag akeady mosad hiS qevidenca and the deféandants have Eda} §§d k'neir evidenaéa, €%‘sai‘&fona, nyayer fer wmmoning meat! sf revnntéa Gem and axaminatian a? §ng€er 3mm axpert at ihig $tage ES nnly a mala fine prayer Wiih an inter}? ta prstract the wit 5. Lnarnw iriai Court, by tha imnugnaai Qrdar, hag rejactad thé defendanis‘ apniicaiians by o'marving that tha triai in at is fag and. $iatement$ ai‘ wiinegsa$ of both the partigm have airgady benn i’emrdegi am incare i3 na axpiana’ticn for enermous iieaiaiy in mnving i‘ie anpiicatiens“ it has; aim bean {absewad inat ihe wagging wiinéaw$ m” ‘ihe Wili hay& airiaaciy bgen examinéd :ind {ha iega! requirémant {3f pmving tha Win has been provideci under Sectians 87 and 68 sf the indian Evidenee Ae‘i, 1872 read with $ei3ti0n 63 af the Indian 3eccesei0n Act, 1925 and ea such ihe apniicatiene dc no? deeerve t0 be entertained. 7. .,« p 7 ' a. On appreeiation 0f the arguments advericed by ieamed couneei )\‘/\/ ’ 3-K er ine yetitianere and upan examinaiian ei the dacurnenie annexed I x i \ /// Q @J? «3" w§th ihe Wéi petitio'n arm! gaeru3ing the impUgneej arder, {hi5 Caurt finds khat éhe iearmad trial Cami has, not cammi‘i’md any @rror 0f Eaw 0r iurisdictian by reajecting the appimaticm mad by iha pa‘:§%§ensr$. Tha ma; {30m wa$ g’ight m abwrvmg ihai tha 5gaga§ {make-mam inf gm'cvmg a Wii§ £33 seniamw m 3ac%§&ns 67 am! $8 a? the Erzaiian Evédamw Acxf, 18.?2 read Mih Eeaticm 63 {3f ihe mdian $ucce33iam Mi, $25 and ‘tha gaiain'tE‘f ha$ aEready aaiageé his5 évidema E i3 alzw i0 ha seem ihat i‘he defey§danf3 haw not maa'e any affar‘t t0 mava ‘iha agpliisatians; at m1 %ar%ie? Emmi 0: ?§m% whey? the avidence af the §3a$tiaa began The su§t i3 mending $§r1ce Juiy, 29w. 'i. m i‘he iacts and aimwiE’tarmEg af thé 933e, W3 Cowi dnees moi firid am: ¢alz2ame 9s" mania‘esi an)!“ of iurisdiaticm wmmhaed .ll. ‘3y A.ahe J.ma! {3mm ii”: r&jest?ng me ag$piicai§ans filed by the dmafanrjantas. 8. m fvigkew Chaiii’asia v5, gm: Ea’hagwm Gupi‘a, ”§$% {E} MPWE‘J ”3% mlied by the pe‘iétioner’a §t d5es mt agagaeag‘ ag %G at what $iag6ee the Eriag wag pkaced. Further, we Saki 13a5£~2 waa $16? Q? a W€§L ihe greef Gf WE"iiCh f3 g vemed by iha reievant wcvisisw 0f the indiaré aucgewiw r. jémtt. 1925 am the Entiian E‘v‘idéme Act, 183%. The ca$$ Eaw is}. imég, mt anpliaabm in 1{he fam J. 01 t the gsi“§$$iai {3&ea. 9. En {Ewiag £¢§$X§§§ Peyeifa Ms; émii whys $5. g$§££3a$ 5.15“) gigaiawwar Khewfm‘ aim Gaihergraf, {2mm ’i SCC 2%, the Hen’bia augrema Cam: ha$ hem! Ems: “w. 5’5? agi‘hatlmf Rgjghand Gswaf v. LaX§'?7'b&i Rife, {€915} t1 $03 858 am»? Cggggihefci: (Six; g3. 865, para ?) , x 7 73% High Cam? cammf in gm'Saa §f exacisiiw {1‘3 \/I giiisa’miw? amdsr An‘icm 22? amwer! fz‘galf mic; a 0mm ”4V ef‘appe‘ai when {m} £5gi£famre has mt aoaferred a €§gh€ m” agapea! amf mack} fhe deci5iar2 (if {he summ’mafe m 0r {ribunai final 0i? facts. " 3%” Ii? Staz‘e v. Navygf Ssndhu. (2003} 3CC 67‘44 : 2063 SCC (Cg) “i545 {hiss Gaun‘ emfésiimd ma wwer 0f fhe High Cewf {mderAiiicle 227 thus: (SCC a; $6151 gara 25‘) 28 Thw§ fhe few i3 éhaf ,4ri‘fcie 22? 6f fh~e Cwstmim r3 mm givem fhe Higf} {3mm é‘he powexr 9f Swerim‘eMwms weir ai} wwfsg aim frfbémals £1Wwgx‘maa‘ fm? ferzifcrieS ii? rgiafiof? ta Whig}? f exerciws'? ja::isdic2‘i0n Thi$ jyrisa’ivsfim cm m. m #mitgd gr feféarégd by 5m}! Am‘ m” éh& Siafa @Mga‘gra. me $w2ewi$wy jimwicfion gxiwa’s ab ,J'aepiim f§9e wigmdmglg Mimwan‘: Wifhir ma Mm? 0f E‘imir aaffzerity am fa geeymg §?E;t they aha; they Iaw. The ptawem agm’ai‘ Aiiiafe 22.? ara wia’a am! Car; be used, fa mea $6 emis 0f jLmfice. They can £36 u5$€f f0 imeitfene wan Wiff; ar; imwiécuf'wy ardm: Hawavw ma powar wdér Ariic/a 227’ i3 a discretionaw wwer am! if is diffiwlf éca attribafa fa 5m (3rd af ‘he #Igf7 Cant W7 u Warm Qf newer when fhe Hg}: sCmm zfself dcag mt s}? g 12% ampw? w exsmse am” such mssiaiimary {aw/er. !t ,I3 ”r‘.v:2‘!ed ka’w mart this mwegr af judicfaf pennfanxieym, -wder A; We 227 :msma, exerwed spymgly am! miy fa k$<~2p guberdinaf@ scarf$ ana glibuiiais wifhm ms; bgums of fhiai’f aaffsarfz‘y am! m: fa Gmrew mere ermm. Fumvaa whera me sfatute bems we 1xarci$e sf revisiwgl yam/era: if wwid require very wiagrepfianal afrwmsz‘ancas to warfanf mteiferense amderAMcle 227’ ef fhe Consfitufion of india smoe z‘he pawer af superintendence was mt meam‘ 2%? dreamt/em statumry‘ iaw. !t :3 sefflec?’ law ma? fhe / jasfisdiction under Afficié, é27 could noz‘ w wamisad ‘f‘as J28 cicak {2f arr appeal In {myww 9a é‘ 32. The aforesaid zwo decisioim and few afher dwisima‘, iwmay, Chaiwavarkar Site Raina Rag v. Aghalata 3‘ Guram. {1936} 4 SCC 447, Stafe af Mafiaraghfra v. Milind. . {2001} 1 SCG 4 : 2007 SOC (L63) 7’17 and Ranjeef Singh v. Ravi Prakash, (2004) 3 SCC 682 ¢ama {o ba' Considered by €hi$ 0mm in Shanwhad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Eajaj, (2008) 9 8C0 2’ and fhis Caurt held: (Tiiak Raj casa. SCC pp. 104?, para 33) “38. Though power3 of a High Coun‘ under Affida$ 226 amd 227 are very wide arm! exfepsive over ali warts am! fribunals fhroughouf {he ferrff‘oriaS in f reiaz‘mp i‘o which it exercisw juiiwiciian, $uch pawers; megsz‘ be axaraisad wii‘hin iiie Limits Gfipw. The powar is 3upem‘sory ii? naiw’éi. The High Cetm‘ does wt act 5:3 e apuri 0f appeal 3r a 00w? of arm: it oar? peiiher raview nar r’aappreciaz‘é, riar rerweigh ifia evideme app/“s wfiicii defeririipaiian {2i 5i 3ab0m¥paie cow? {Jr mipriar frifmnal purpm‘s i0 be based or f0 carract err'ars of rm? er ever? of iaw and m subptifufe ifa‘r 0m decigim far iiiaz‘ 0f the inferior coun" ar éribunai. Tm; powam am reqaired i0 be axercispd magi spaiingiy apd aniy is? §ppropriats casa‘s; in Qm’w i6 imgp fhe gubarciinaip wurz‘s apd infenlar iiibw?ai$ within aha iimii$ afiaw." ’1 a, Fmm what has; wean Ead pipwn and reitéraiarj by tha Appx Cam“? in $9i‘pgi éfpgihp Pw‘gira {Mg} ami wihgr3 w: éiihps M§habai83iiwar gmikpr amf m‘hpm (3upra}, it wiil be @xpiicit ihat ihe present $51352 i8 aai a? Such a mature am the impugnad amber daés; fiat suffer fmm wsh @Elegaiéiy w inmméiy which needa inmrferance updai Ariicie 227 {zf the @pwiutimw if india. The prewnt writ petition, ihus, iaiig and is hereby di$ii1i$ggedi Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishia : . Judge , " r Gapzgi 7 i e