IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHI ws&'m MllilDS.ail'-B CIVIL REVISION N0. 0% /2004 UNDER SECTION 1150F THECODE OF CIVIL PROGEDURE1908 ';:'i^WII ^.ji^ll .^5?ii PESTITIONER : ./- ...; DEFENDANTNO.l -Anwar Haque, s/o Shamshujjamma. Musalaman, aged about 48 years, r/o Sawan, Tahisl and Mungeli, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) .' • VERSUS ^.^y^? ^^': ^iSi W'ifX ws RESPbNDNETS 'PLAAINrTFF DEFENDANTN0.2 ?'leB°. .M ^,!'d^A."'T"'..:,,:.''.,.^:: rFSheikl'i Rasool, s/wSheikh Aziz Musalainan s/o Hathaiiipara, Ward Bhatapara, DistriGt Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^•^•'S^TS.I^ .;.'-. State of-M^ , through District Collector Bilaspur (Chhatfisgarh) 1 ^F XI-HC-22 SII^f^iI few 3115^1 Sft<4 ^{f^: ,A -l -S^l ^ffqRPT, •^ftWIS, f«IWI«1< *(TH?iT •JbNI'* C'.'^ . N0- C><§/^C30l( T^--^--1-------^ f3M aii^r ^giw ^fta 5i uncler that Shri Alok Bakshi, counsel foif Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, Panl Heard both the counsei. The petltioner has preferr^ by the order dated 10-12-2003 Ctnss-I, Mungeli in civii suit No.24- Haque csnd another) whereby Thi| <ypiication of respondent No.i. Civil Procedure. Tne facts of the case are the peti+ioner for decicration and pehdency of That suit Nyaz Bi die<|j. acpiication under Order 22 Rule (uS record the legal heirs of late Nya; objectio" that lats Nyaz Bi had n|i- aiieged to have been executed b^| No.l is not genujne. Since th| execution of the wiii as also the heirs, the learned Civil Judge em under Order 22 Rule 5 of the C.f registered wiil executed in favour this civil revision being aggrieved j|iassed by the learned Civil Judge, |i-A/1999 (Sheikh Rasooi vs. Anww learned Civil Judge diowed the Ocder 22 Rute 3 of the Code of t^!^<?i^'1 ^l*4^lt ^ ls'<i •<E^(^.R ^siPgtian^T fne petitioner. ;! Lawyer for ths State. d this nibt Nyaz Bi fiied a civil suit a9oinst ^ermanent injunction and durin9 the !. RespondenT No.l herein filed an of the C.P.C. for brin9in3 him on Bi. The petitioner herein raised an ieft any le9al heirs and the Wiil Nyaz Bi in favour of "espondent petitioner herein disputed the •ight of r^spondent No.l for legal |ered into. an enquiry as envisaged '... Respondent No.l presented the !pf him by late Nyaz Bi and in order PjC XI-HC-22 sii^i'w 1^W3RTSW wRwgfei I ^ 1 ^•^ ri||i]|cf<<, E?t)ly'l<», i°«'ll*<3,<. 3ff^r ira^ wwfr%w» 2CO siKg^giWHfel -2-- to prove the will he filed an affi two attesting witnesses of the v^ whereas the counter affidavit it herein and two other" persons^ executed by late Nyaz Bi 'mfavoU/ The learned Civil Jud9C respondent No.l and two afi'esi cnd Siyaram aid also the regist^ iate Nyaz Bi executed a reaisterl therefore, he is the !ega! heir o deeis'ons of Pun iab and Harayon< Court the learned Civil Judge TU! the question of legai heir if sufficient proof for bringing tha the deceased. Undsr Order 22 Ruie 5 o1 conduct a summary enquiry in person who has opplied is a lega the leoirned Civil Judge conducte< of registered wili and the affi respondent No.l is a legal heir. 'sbilfs'Kil-t ^IlRff 4 felzt <f"l<<l< •^; SrfWt 3tl^[ ordter lavit of himseif and the affidavits of III namely Vishnu Prasad and Siyaram, us filed on behalf of the petitioner aiteging thsi'si" that no will uuas of 1tie respondent No.l. after believing the affidavi+s of ing witnesses namely. Vishnu Prasad ;red "."I! rsached The conclusion that pd wii! in favour of respondent No.l, iute Nyaz Bi. After reiying on the High Court ond aiso ftajasthan High Ither heid -i+iat in order ta deter'mine |he "egistered will is fiied that is person on rscord as a legal heir of the C.P.C. 'the Court is rsquired to Ifer +o ascsrtain the fact whether the "epresentative or not.' In this case the preliminary enquiry on the basis tlavits reached the conc!usion tiiat 11.. XI-HC-22 sn^iqn R-ii* svgs •**1 -yfed Barve 'S^i x'li'tod^, afli^'i®,(««ni*iy WHpn »!*<!<») Since the registered wiil herein, there was no reason bef4 the affidayit of tiie respondent cn the impression of petitionei^ partlcularly when the petitioner ^ the execution of the will by Nyaz | Tnerefore, in view of the learned Civil Judqe has not abote order. I do not find ainy same is Inble to be dismissed ond has been filed by respcndent No.l fne trial Court to disbelieve that ((nd two other witnesses simpiy based herein tha+ wiil was not <^ a^not sny personal knowledge about 4iHTd'4l'l 'RFf^f ^ 'f5XA <F'l'^.t< ^3lf;OT3lA?I [above, I am of tiie opinion 1+iat 1+ie con^mitted any iilega'ity in passing the s|jbstance in this civil revision and the |t is dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge