(BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR 1 TO 4. )

SMT KAMALA D/O KRISHNA DEEN MALLAH W/O SHRI RAM NARAYAN MALLAH , AGED ABOUT 42 YEA R S , OCCUPATION: AGRUICULTURIST AND HOUSE WORK R/P GRAM DEVRA POST-BACHWAI TEH-RAGHURAHNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA, ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER AND SMT. DEVRATI W/O SHAMBHU PRASAD MALLAH R/P GRAM DEVRA POST-BACHWAI TEH- RAGHURAHNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) RAMDULARI D/O KRISHNA DEEN M ALLAH W/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD MALLAH R/P GRAM DEVRA POST-BACHWAI TEH-RAGHURAHNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) RAMRATI D/O KRISHNA DEEN MALLAH W/O SHRI RAJMAN MALLAH R/P GRAM DEVRA POST- BACHWAI TEH-RAGHURAHNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) SHEELA D/O KRISHNA DEEN M A L L A H W/O DWARIKA PRASAD MALLAH RAMTEKRI, TEH. RAGHURAJNAGAR, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) VIDHYA D/O KRISHNA MALLAH W/O LALMAN TEH. RAGHURAJNAGAR, M A L L A H SOHAS (MADHYA PRADESH) BABY DEVI GUPTA W/O OM PRAKASH GUPTA (MADHYA MADHAVGARD THANA KOLGAWA PRADESH) MANAH GUPTA S/O VIJAY GUPTA BHARHUT NAGAR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) RAMBHAN TIWARI S/O BHAIYALAL TIWARI (MADHYA KATIYA TEH. RAGHURAJNAGAR, PRADESH) SATE OF MADHYA COLLECTOR SATNA SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) PRADESH THROUGH

#9. Signature Not Verified SAN SHARMA 2 (BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR 1 TO 4. ) .....RESPONDENTS T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This Writ Petition by the plaintiffs is directed against the order dated

28.11.2016 in Civil Suit No.48A/2013 passed by I Civil Judge Class I, Nagod, District Satna. At the instance of defendants, the photocopy of original Will has been accepted as secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiffs submits that the unregistered photocopy of the Will could not have been accepted as secondary evidence unless the same conformed to the requirement of secondary evidence as defined under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court, therefore, committed an error of law and fact while allowing the application for taking the photocopy of the Will on record. However, learned counsel does not dispute that the Trial Court on the same day has allowed an application of the defendants under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC calling for original record of Civil Suit No.30A/11 wherein the original Will dated 01.09.1995 has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, as a matter of fact, the first part of the impugned order loses its significance and this petition has rendered infructuous. However, this Court refrains from commenting thereupon. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified SAN SAN SHARMA SHARMA