1 2025:CGHC:44729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 961 of 2023 1 - Smt. Peminbai W/o Late Shri Daulal Aged About 55 Years R/o Nawagaon, Tahsil-Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.),....(Plaintiff/s) 2 - Jagdish (Now Died) Through Legal Representative 2.1 - (A) Smt. Kusum Bharti W/o Late Shri Jagdish Aged About 45 Years R/o Nawagaon, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2.2 - (B) Smt. Bhuneshwari Chelak W/o Karn Keyur Chelak Aged About 28 Years R/o Ner Sheetla, Village Adhari Nawagaon, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2.3 - (C) Smt. Devika Lahre W/o Shri Devanand Lahre Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Madarod, Tahsil Kurudh, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2.4 - (D) Jitendra Bharati S/o Late Shri Jagdish Aged About 24 Years R/o Nawagaon, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2.5 - (E) Kumari Hema Bharati D/o Late Shri Jagdish Aged About 22 Years R/o Nawagaon, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Teslal S/o Late Shri Sukhram Satnami Aged About 51 Years R/o Nawagaon, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lakhan Lal S/o Late Shri Guharam Satnami Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil- Gurur, District Balod (C.G.),... (Defendant/s) 2 - Ratan Lal S/o Late Shri Guharam Satnami Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Guharam Satnami Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Panna Lal S/o Late Shri Motilal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - 2 Kumharkhan, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Chhote Lal S/o Late Shri Guharam Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Nirmla Bai D/o Late Shri Guharam Satnami Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil-Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Basanti Bai D/o Late Shri Guharam Satnami Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil-Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 8 - Daneshwar S/o Late Shri Motilal Satnami Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil-Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Babita D/o Late Shri Motilal Satnami Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Kumharkhan, Tahsil-Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 9 : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 02-09-2025 1) Petitioners have filed this petition assailing the order passed by learned Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 43A/2016 dated 07.10.2023 whereby application moved under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been rejected. 2) Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the civil suit has been filed by petitioners/ plaintiffs claiming therein relief of permanent injunction and further a direction to restrain the respondents/ defendants from alienating any part of the suit property mentioned in plaint. Plaintiffs have claimed right over the suit property on the 3 basis of will-deed executed by one Amoliram S/o Lt. Manbodhi Satnami in favor of plaintiffs on 28.06.1990. During pendency of civil suit, plaintiffs moved an application under Section 45 of Act, 1872 to examine the thumb impression of Amoliram by a hand- writing expert. Learned Trial Court while rejecting the application held that authenticity of thumb impression may be proved by adducing evidence. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case of plaintiffs is based on the will-deed and if its veracity and validity is not proved strictly in accordance with law, it would affect the merits of the case. He prays to allow the petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 9 submits that plaintiffs in their application have not placed any document to compare the thumb impression of Amoliram present in will-deed with thumb impression of another document. He further submits that application has been moved after completion of plaintiffs’ evidence, therefore, same was rightly rejected by Trial Court. 5) Learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) It appears that a will-deed was executed by Amoliram in favor of plaintiffs on 28.06.1990. Amoliram as well as the attesting witnesses to the said document are no more. Plaintiffs want to prove the contents of said will-deed by examining thumb 4 impression of Amoliram by a hand-writing expert. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application moved by plaintiffs holding that thumb impression of Amoliram can be proved by leading other evidence. 8) Firstly, learned Court below has not described the other modes of evidence to prove the thumb impression. Secondly, case of plaintiffs is solely based on will-deed. Also, it appears that plaintiffs have not closed their evidence yet. Therefore, learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Section 45 of Act, 1872. But at the same time, plaintiffs have not placed any other document to compare the thumb impression of Amoliram. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, order impugned dated 07.10.2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. Petitioners are permitted to move a fresh application before learned Trial Court, which in turn is directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the the other party. 10) In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.02 18:15:51 +0530