1 2026:CGHC:7204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 176 of 2025 1 - Monika Sharma W/o Vikas Sharma, D/o Late Lakhanlal Gourha Aged About 34 Years R/o- Shyamprabha Sadan, Near Gurudwara, Gondpara 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 12.02.2025 passed by the learned 6th Civil Judge Junior Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 210-A/2024, by which application of the RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.16 17:30:09 +0530 2 petitioner under Section 39 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (henceforth referred as Adhiniyam, 2023) 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the written statement has already been filed. He submits that a power of attorney was also executed by Late Parwati Bai which was registered at the office of Sub Registrar, Pamgarh, District Bilaspur and the case of petitioner in the written statement is that the ‘Will’ which is said to have been executed by Late Parwati Bai in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is a forged one and the thumb impression put upon that ‘Will’ is also forged one. He further submits that as Late Parwati Bai has also executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 by putting her thumb impression, in order to ascertain whether the thumb impression put by Late Parwati Bai on the alleged ‘Will’ is one and the same. The petitioner filed an application under 3 Section 39 of the Adhiniyam, 2023. He submits that by passing the impugned order the said application has been illegally rejected by the learned Civil Judge holding that the power of attorney is an unregistered document and it is not an admitted one. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the according to Section 72 of the Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court has to record a satisfaction and can ask for comparison of both the thumb impressions from the expert. He further submits that as the power of attorney is a registered document, the finding of the learned Civil Judge that it is a unregistered document is not correct. Thus, this application may be allowed. 5. Opposing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gupta submits that the ‘Will’ on the basis of which, the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a Civil suit is required to be proved by the cogent evidence by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. He submits that the ‘Will’ is required to be proved under provisions contained in Section 63 C of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and 69 of Adhiniyam, 2023 pari materia Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972. In order to compare the thumb impression, the documents are required to be admitted or proved. 6. In the case in hand, the respondent No.1/plaintiff has not admitted the execution of power of attorney, thus, until and unless the document is proved on record, the Court cannot exercise its 4 jurisdiction under Section 39 or Section 72 of the Adhiniyam, 2023 as the case may be and as the impugned order is based upon the proper appreciation of material available on record does not requires any interference exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of India by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record would indicate that a Civil suit was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as mentioned above. The defence which is shown to be put forth by the petitioner/defendant No.1 is that the ‘Will’ which is said to have been executed by Late Parwati Bai in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is a forged one and there is no thumb impression of Late Parwati Bai on the said ‘Will’. Her case is that Late Parwati Bai has executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner in which she has put thumb impression which is also registered one. Thus, while the document is registered, the Court should have exercised its power under Section 72 of the Adhiniyam, 2023. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that in order to compare the thumb impression, there has to be an admission of admitted thumb impression on the document and found that the power of attorney dated 10.09.2019 is unregistered one, thus the 5 application could not have been allowed. Section 39 of the Adhiniyam, 2023 talks about opinion of the experts. Section 72 of the Adhiniyam, 2023 talks about comparison of signatures, writing or seal with other admitted or proved documents. 9. Conjoint reading of these two provisions could make it clear that if the Court wants to compare the signatures, writing, seal or thumb impression, there has to be admission of document. 10. In the case in hand, the power of attorney which set to have been compare with the alleged ‘Will’, has not been admitted by the the respondent No.1/plaintiff and thus, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner/defendant No.1 was required to prove the execution of the said document by the Late Parwati Bai, she can move an application under Section 39 read with Section 72 of the Adhiniyam, 2023. Thus at this stage, this Court does not find any irregularity in the impugned order and this writ petition is thus dismissed. However, the liberty is reserved 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. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Ravi Mandavi