1 26 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2771/2008 (Tara Singh & Anr. Vs. Hakam Singh & Anr.) Date of Order :: 25th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.D.S.Deo,for the petitioner Mr.H.R.Chawla,for the respondent .... Though the matter has been considered on the application as moved on behalf of the contesting respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order dated 01.05.2008, but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition itself deserves to be dismissed for the conduct of the petitioners. This writ petition was filed on 25.04.2008 challenging the order dated 06.11.2007 (Annex.P/5) as passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Probate Petition No.6/2001. By the order impugned, the learned Additional District Judge declined the prayer as made by the petitioners seeking permission to snap the photographs of the disputed will and the thumb impressions thereupon. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on motion-admission and perusing the material then placed on record, this Court found the matter worth consideration and, therefore, admitted the 2 writ petition; and while issuing the notices, ordered stay over further proceedings in the said Probate Petition No.6/2001. The contesting respondents have filed reply and the application for vacating the interim order and it has, inter alia, been pointed out that in the said probate proceedings, the evidence of the plaintiff was already over on 06.09.2007 and the matter was fixed for defendants' evidence on 06.10.2007 and was adjourned to 30.10.2007. It has been pointed out that the application was moved by the present petitioners on 30.10.2007 (decided by the impugned order dated 06.11.2007) and another application regarding court fees was moved by the petitioners on 06.10.2007 that too was rejected. It has further been pointed out that after rejections of such applications, the defendant-petitioners did move an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Sriganganagar seeking transfer of the matter and such transfer petition was rejected on 09.04.2008. A copy of the order dated 09.04.2008 as passed by the District Judge, Sriganganagar in such transfer petition (Misc. Case No.44/2008) has been placed on record as Annexure R/6. It is noticed from the said order dated 09.04.2008 that the petitioners proceeded to level allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned in their application under Section 24 CPC in rather an oblique manner but with 3 reference to the orders passed against them, including the order dated 06.11.2007, sought to be impugned in this writ petition. It was suggested that the plaintiff Hakam Singh had been proclaiming that he would get the decision in his favour and it was also suggested that on 17.01.2008 the petitioner had seen the said Hakam Singh standing outside the gate of the house of the Presiding Officer. The learned District Judge considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and rejected the transfer application after finding that applications after applications were moved by the petitioners without co -operating in the progress of the matter and the allegations as leveled against the Presiding Officer were wholly unfounded and baseless. The fact significant is that this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.11.2007 was filed only on 25.04.2008 i.e., after the said transfer application was rejected by the learned District Judge. The petitioners have chosen not to come out forthright while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and have not even indicated in the writ petition that they had filed any such transfer application. A litigant is not entitled to attempt at writ jurisdiction of this Court without disclosing all the relevant facts. It was expected to the petitioners to have been forthright and to disclose all the relevant facts and aspects. 4 Then, the conduct of the petitioners in suggesting want of faith in the Presiding Officer primarily because two of the applications moved by them were rejected, cannot be said to be justified or discreet. For the conduct of the petitioners in moving the transfer application and then concealing such fact in this writ petition, this Court is not inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction in their favour. Even on merits, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the fact of the disputed will carrying thumb impressions of the deceased Suren Singh had not been precisely put in dispute and only this much was suggested in paragraph 20 of the reply that the thumb impressions appeared to have been put earlier (that is, prior to the execution of the document). In the face of such a vague stand as taken by the petitioners, even otherwise there does not appear any failure of justice if the learned Trial Court has refused their prayer for photography of the document in question. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,200/-. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni