[2025:JHHC:13628] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 114 of 2025 Jyoti Kumari @ Smt. Jyoti Kumari, aged about-32 years wife of Rajiv Ranjan Shukla, Resident of Village-Palhey Khurdh, P.O. Naudiha, P.S. Paton, District-Palamu. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Asha Devi, wife of Anjani Tiwaгі, Resident of Village-Jamundih, P.O. and P.S. Lesliganj, District-Palamu. 2. Smt. Sampooran Devi, wife of Sri Umesh Kumar Shukla, Resident of Village-Palhey Kualhey Khurdh, P.O. Naudiha, P.S. Paton, District-Palamu. 3. Smt. Suman Kumari wife of Sri Ravi Ranjan Shukla, Resident of Village Palhey Khurdh, P.O. Naudiha, P.S. Paton, District-Palamu. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate. For the O.P. No. 1 : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate. : Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate. For the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. L.C. Roy, Advocate. ------ 06/ 06.05.2025 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 and Mr. L.C. Roy, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 18.09.2024, passed in Original Suit No. 01 of 2022 [vide CNR No. JHPL01000037-2022], whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order-XVIII Rule-17 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that [2025:JHHC:13628] -2- the Original Suit No. 01 of 2022 was instituted before the learned Principal District Judge, Daltonganj at Palamau under Section 279 of the Indian Succession Act with a prayer to grant probate of a will dated 04.09.2021 executed by one Sudeshwar Upadhyay, in favour of the petitioner and O.P. No. 3. He submits that the said suit proceeded and P.Ws. have been examined and subsequently a petition under Order-XVIII, Rule-17 of the CPC has been filed for recalling of P.W.-4, who is plaintiff herself, however, the same has been rejected by the learned court. He further submits that the said petition has been rejected by the learned court and the prayer was made to recall only with a view to mark certain documents. 4. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 submits that O.P. No. 1 is own sister of the mother-in-law of the petitioner and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 are proforma opposite parties in this case. He submits that P.W.-1, who is petitioner herein was already examined and discharged on 24.02.2024 and thereafter the documents were filed on 05.03.2024. He further submits that on 05.03.2024, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a petition for grant of leave for filing documents, which was allowed by the learned court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- and thereafter the plaintiff examined witnesses Suman Kumari and Madan Mohan Singh and thereafter the said petition under Order- XVIII Rule-17 CPC has been filed without giving any valid reasons in view of that the learned court has rightly dismissed her petition saying that only to fill up the lacuna, the said petition was filed. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. From the documents, available on record, it transpires that P.W.-4 has already stated in para-6 of the examination-in-chief that Sudheshwar Upadhayay has left for his heavenly abode on [2025:JHHC:13628] -3- 19.09.2021 and thereafter as per the Hindu rites, his cremation and other rituals have been done and in course of arranging the things of one box, one document i.e. the Will was found and thereafter the probate case has been filed, which clearly suggests that the knowledge of the Will is already there to the plaintiff and further the documents, sought to be brought on record has been allowed by the learned court and in view of that the substantial justice has been done to the petitioner, in spite of that the said petition has been filed and the learned court has found that to fill up the lacuna, the said petition has been filed. The learned court has considered that the said Rule is to enable the court to clarify any doubts, which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties and in this regard the learned court has relied in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through Lrs. Versus Sharad Chand Prabhakar, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1604. 6. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-