SBCWP No.2023/2009 Vishwanath Bandhiya Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.2023/2009 Vishwanath Bandhiya Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 16.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is owner of the property by virtue of the will executed in his favour and before that there was another will, which defendant is setting up, but because of the subsequent will in favour of the plaintiff, the earlier will is of no consequence. At the time of defendant's evidence, the plaintiff sought order against the defendant for production of the will, which defendant wants to rely upon and that prayer has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that since the plaintiff himself is claiming that there was earlier will and when the existence of the earlier will is admitted and plaintiff's case is that he is the owner by virtue of subsequent will then there is no necessity of issuing direction to the defendant to produce the earlier will. SBCWP No.2023/2009 Vishwanath Bandhiya Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. 2 It will be worthwhile to mention here that while rejecting the plaintiff's-petitioner's application seeking production of the document from the defendant, the trial court in the same order, took on record the copy of the will relied upon by the defendant by exercising powers under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner has not only grievance against non-issuance of direction against the defendant for production of the document, but has grievance against the accepting the document in evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which plaintiff himself wanted to get produce from the defendant in original. In some and substance, the plaintiff wanted production of the original will relied upon by the defendant, which according to the plaintiff stands cancelled by virtue of the subsequent will in favour of the plaintiff, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. When plaintiff failed to show the relevance of the document relied upon by the defendant for any purpose and when the copy of the some document i.e., will produced in evidence has already been admitted in evidence and not disputed by the plaintiff is formally SBCWP No.2023/2009 Vishwanath Bandhiya Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. 3 admitted, the plaintiff is raising objection. If the stand of the plaintiff is accepted then the will of the defendant is a sequential document, but of no consequence. The objection of the plaintiff against the impugned order is frivolous. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not meant for such purpose where the party has no grievance, yet can approach the court to show that there is some technical defect in the order. I do not find any just reason for challenging the order passed by the trial court 17.2.2009 on any ground and since notice has not been issued to the other party, therefore, no cost is imposed. The writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-