Civil Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.12.2009 Pritam Singh Bajaj …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Primary grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) could not take cognizance of complaint (Annexure P10) and hold enquiry (Annexure P11). It is further submitted that the findings given in Annexure P11 have got no legal sanction as it is only the Probate Court which can determine the validity of the will. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “1872 Act”). Section 41 of 1872 Act read as under:- “41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate etc., jurisdiction A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers Civil Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2009 2 upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof- That any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; That any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued, to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; That any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; And that anything to which it declares any person so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property” Counsel further states that will (Annexure P4) is yet to be examined by the Probate Court. Therefore, the findings given in enquiry report (Annexure P11) will have no relevance. Civil Writ Petition No. 18203 of 2009 3 This Court has nothing to doubt the assertion made by counsel for the petitioner. The well settled legal proposition advanced by the counsel cannot be examined by this Court simply on the ground that Annexure P11 enquiry report is not part of any proceedings to determine the validity of the will. As and when in any legal proceedings enquiry report (Annexure P11) is to be used against the petitioner he will be well within his rights to urge before that Court that the enquiry report per se is not admissible and cannot be considered being without jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court shall refrain from making any comment on the enquiry report and the arguments raised in the writ petition as the same are to be examined by the appropriate forum as and when any adjudication is sought by any concerned party, qua the will commented upon in enquiry (Annexure P11). With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of as no interference is warranted. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 7, 2009 “DK”