1 2026:CGHC:7205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 996 of 2025 1 - Monika Sharma W/o- Vikas Sharma, D/o - Late Lakhanlal Gourha Aged About 34 Years R/o - Shyamprabha Sadan, Near Gurudwawara, Gandpara Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 9879760866 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Umashankar Sharma S/o - Late Ghasiram Sharma Aged About 72 Years R/o - Village Birkona, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. B. P. Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Senior Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.16 17:30:09 +0530 2 referred as ‘Civil Judge’) in Civil Suit (A)/210/2024), by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth referred as ‘CPC’) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff, filed a Civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property comprised in peace of Khasra No.843 admeasuring area 0.433 hectare and Khasra No. 845 admeasuring area 0.263 hectare, total area 0.696 hectare situated at Village Birkona, Tahsil & District – Bilaspur (C.G.) at the strength of ‘Will’ executed by Late Parwati Bai. 3. He submits that Late Parwati Bai has also executed a power of attorney holder in favour of the petitioner putting her thumb impression. He further submits that the written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 and objected the execution of the alleged ‘Will’ and the thumb impression put forth on that ‘Will’. In order to compare, both the thumb impression, initially she has filed application under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (henceforth referred as Adhiniyam, 2023) which was earlier rejected by the learned Civil Judge. Thereafter an application under Section 151 of the CPC was filed, in which she has prayed that the thumb impression put on the ‘Will’ dated 28.12.2012 may be examined by him through the expert, thus, the record of the same be made available. This application was rejected by the impugned order. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to prove the dispute between the parties with regard to execution of the ‘Will’ it is necessary that it should be compared with the thumb impression put upon the ‘Will’ with the thumb impression put upon the power of attorney, thus, the impugned order is bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that there is no irregularity in the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This case is listed along with WP227 /176/2025. In the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had challenged order dated 12.02.2025, passed by 6th Civil Judge Junior Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 210-A/2024, by which his application under Section 39 of Adhiniyam, 2023 was rejected. That writ petition was dismissed granting liberty in favour of the petitioner to file a fresh application under relevant provision of law after execution of the power of attorney is proved in accordance with law at the proper stage. As the initial order by which the application under Section 39 of Adhiniyam, 2023 was rejected, has not been interfered with in the earlier writ petition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by this Court, thus this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Ravi Mandavi