Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66291 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2770 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Ranno Devi Respondent :- Babu Ram And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Sharma,Puneet Kumar,Rahul Pandey,Zafar Ali Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This is the plaintiffs' petition. Mother of petitioner Smt. Sarjudei had instituted the Original Suit No. 382 of 1988 against one Babu Ram claiming relief for cancellation of registered Will deed dated 27.7.1987 executed by her husband late Vasudev in favour of respondent no. 1 Babu Ram. During pendency of said civil suit, Sarjudei unfortunately died and her two daughters Ranno Devi and Guddi Devi were substituted as legal heirs and are pursuing the suit. Two applications, one for summoning the records from the Allahabad Bank for specimen signatures of Vasudev was moved which was numbered as paper no. 112-Ga and same was allowed by the court below, pursuant to which Rs. 300 was deposited by the plaintiffs in the treasury in the year 1998. Another application was moved in the year 2018 for summoning the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981 which was decided by the court of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghazipur, District Fatehpur on 13.3.1982. 2. According to petitioner's counsel, the application 112-Ga despite having been allowed was not complied and bank officials did not appear before the court and produce the required documents as directed by the court concerned. The application for summoning the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981 was taken up by the trial court and same was dismissed on 3.2.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed civil revision which has also been rejected by the order impugned dated 19.2.2018. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the signatures of Vasudev needs to be tallied from the bank records as well as the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981. Despite the fact that tender was deposited by the plaintiffs, the officials of Allahabad Bank did not turn up, which led to filing of the application for summoning of records of mutation case, which has been illegally rejected by both the courts below. 4. Learned counsel for contesting defendant respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that both the orders passed by the court below are just and proper and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. The suit instituted by mother of petitioner was for cancellation of Will deed dated 27.7.1987 on the ground that signatures of her husband late Vasudev are forged and he had not executed any Will in favour of respondent no. 1 Babu Ram. The plaintiffs being legal heir alongwith her two daughters are to succeed to the assets of late Vasudev. To substantiate their contention, plaintiffs had moved the application for summoning the records of bank so as to demonstrate that the signatures of late Vasudev in the account opening form defers from the signatures as on Will deed. When the records were not produced by the bank officials, plaintiffs had moved application for summoning the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981 from tehsil Ghazipur which was decided in the year 1982. 6. The trial court should have considered that the entire case of the plaintiffs hinges on the fact that the signatures on Will deed defers from the original signature of late Vasudev which can only be ascertained by the documents executed by late Vasudev during his life time. The account opening form of Allahabad Bank was one of the evidence which could have decided the dispute. Despite tender having been deposited by the plaintiffs the officials of Allahabad Bank failed to produce the required documents as directed by the trial court while allowing application 112-Ga. The court below was not correct in rejecting the application for summoning the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981 as it was contested between Vasudev and Bhura. It is the best piece of evidence as in mutation proceedings the relevant documents must have been signed by late Vasudev. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that both the courts below had wrongly rejected the application for summoning the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981 decided on 13.3.1982. In view of the said fact, the order dated 3.2.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 11, Fatehpur and order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the District Judge, Fatehpur are hereby set aside. 8. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 9. Looking to the facts of the case, as the suit in question is of the year 1988, it is hereby directed that the trial court, after summoning of the records of Mutation Case No. 175 of 1981, shall expedite the proceedings of trial and decide the same, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, on day to day basis, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad