1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2010. Sau. Meena Ranjitsingh Bais and others. -: VERSUS :- Smt. Meena Rajeshsingh Chavhan and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2010. Heard Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs and Shri V.S. Bapat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4/defendants. The dispute pertains to a Will, allegedly executed by one Kanhaiyasingh in favour of Rajeshsingh, now deceased. Rajeshsingh was the husband of respondent no.1 and brother of petitioners. Petitioners closed their evidence and they reserved their right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants entered witness box and one inland letter allegedly written by Kanhaiyasingh was shown 2 to respondent no.1 during her cross examination, and she did not accept it. With contention that the said letter bears signature of Kanhaiyalal, and the Will produced on record bears his thumb impression, petitioners/ plaintiffs moved application seeking leave to examine the addressee of the inland letter, and that has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order. The application as filed also contained a request that the deceased Kanhaiyasingh was having a Bank account and hence leave was sought to examine the officer from the said Bank. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel contends that this request is not appreciated by the trial Court at all. Shri Bapat, learned counsel points out that the defence that Kanhaiyalal used to sign was already in plaint and inspite of that, the alleged inland letter was never produced earlier. He further states that the trial Court has found that there were no diligent efforts made by the petitioners to bring on record the said fact. According to him, the contention about discovery of Bank account is not substantiated. After hearing the parties it becomes clear that since beginning the petitioners / plaintiffs have averred that Kanhaiyalal was making signature. They therefore ought to 3 have produced the alleged inland letter (at least Photostat copy) on record, however, that has not been done. In this view of the matter, the observations made by the learned Trial Court in paragraph no.8 of the order, cannot be said to be erroneous and perverse. No case is made out warranting any interference in that part. The petitioners have attempted to bring on record a Bank account allegedly maintained by Kanhaiyasingh. If such Bank account really exists, the said position is of assistance to trial court in finding out the truth. The petitioners/plaintiffs does not stand to gain anything by suppressing said Bank account and by pointing out it at the eleventh hour. Even if, some malafides are presumed on the part of the petitioners, still papers in relation to operation of that Bank account cannot be fabricated. Hence, I find it in the interest of justice to permit the petitioners to examine the concerned officer from the Bank to bring on record, the Bank account and the mode and manner of its operation. The trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter at all in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Achalpur below Exh.154 in Regular Civil Suit No. 71/2003 is quashed 4 and set aside only for that purpose. Application at Exh.154 as moved by the petitioners is partly allowed and they are permitted to examine the witness from Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Limited as mentioned in paragraph no.4 of that application. Writ Petition is disposed of in view of above orders. Rule accordingly, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.