31m}! 57 ”mlw @ N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I w.P.(227)No. éSC clamzov / /,—\ Cj/IG/ PETITIONER $2 v FENDEH ?f$ «he Smt. m. Dharmin Bai, V 1’ W/ o. Ram Kumar Yadav, R/o. Village Baisma, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Salik Ram Gavel, S/o. Bal Ram,‘R~/o. Ramayan Chowk Chantidih, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C. G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS «a {oi v. 41‘a Bahoran Yadav, aged about 65 years, S/o. Vishram Yadav, R/ o. Kouwa Tal, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C. G.). :1. /, State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C. G.). W Defgwg Mb 2A /' 2‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioners named above beg to submit as under:~ / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (227) No. 630 OF 2011 PRS ETITIONE Smt. Dharmin Bai and another. DEFENDANTS Versus Bahoran Yadav and another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Sfnqle Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : ShriAnoop Sharma, counselforthe petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 03'3 day of February, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. Legality and propriety of the order dated 27-08-2010 passed by IX Civil Judge, Class—II. Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.03- A/2009 where by the petitioners’ application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed by the trial Court is under assail in the instant petition. 3. As per the petitioners, they have fried the original Will deed before the Tahsiidar in some case but the same is missing. The petitioners should have applied before the Tahsiidar for obtaining the above original Will deed and if Tahsildar finds that the original Will deed was filed by the petitioners in some case and the same is missing, then that order will prove that in fact the petitioners have filed the original Will deed before Tahsildar and the same is missing. No efforts have been made by the petitioners to find out the original Will deed. 4. ln view of the above, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the EM, Kvr 2 petitioners are at liberty to We a fresh application before the trial Court under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, with order of Tahsildar showing that the originai Will deed fried by the petitioners in some case is missing from the ofiice of Tahsildar. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge