SBCWP NO.1490/2008– SMT. USHA BHATT V/S NARENDRA . . : ORDER DATED 5.8.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1490/2008 Smt. Usha Bhatt versus Narendra. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, , for the petitioner Mr.Anil Upadhyaya, for the respondent. DATE OF ORDER : 5th AUGUST, 2008. O R D E R 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dtd.3.1.2008 whereby in the proceedings relating to succession certifiate in respect of a will of late Sh. Bhanwar Lal, the petitioner – objector was the only objector and she filed an application under Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Order 18 Rule 4(2) C.P.C. for cross-examining the SBCWP NO.1490/2008– SMT. USHA BHATT V/S NARENDRA . . : ORDER DATED 5.8.2008 2/3 deponents of affidavits who supported the grant of succession certificate in favour of the applicant Narendra. 3. The present petitioner is one of the two daughters of the second wife of late Sh. Bhanwar Lal. The learned Dist. Judge by impugned order dtd.3.1.2008 has found that the application dtd.29.11.2007 filed by the present petitioner did not disclose any reason as to on what points she wants to cross-examine the deponents of affidavits given in support of succession certificate and therefore, the said application was rejected by the learned trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application, all the necessary details were given for seeking such cross-examination. 5. Mr.Anil Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent opposes these submissions and submits that the said application is filed merely with a view to delay the proceedings as firstly the petitioner has neither any locus standi to raise the objection and secondly no reason was assigned in the application seeking such cross-examination. SBCWP NO.1490/2008– SMT. USHA BHATT V/S NARENDRA . . : ORDER DATED 5.8.2008 3/3 6. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the application (Annex.4) and the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking cross-examination of all deponents who have given affidavits in support of succession certificate. The said application was, therefore, rightly rejected which was filed with oblique motive of delaying the proceedings. 7. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.55 Ss/-