The petition was filed by the appellant under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC to send the Will in question to the hand writing expert, allegedly executed by Natabar Das in favour of the first respondent and probated in Probate Misc.
Reliance is also placed upon the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments in RC No.6/2015 dated 13.05.2016 in the revision filed by Mahanta Gopi Das against the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneshwar in OS No.7/2007.
The first respondent challenged the said order dated 18.06.2013 before the High Court in WP C No.14977 of 2013.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2018.10.24 The appellant herein filed C.S. No.2/34 of 2008/2003 seeking 152548 IST Reason revocation of the Probate granted in favour of the first respondent i.e. Laxmidhar Mahapatra in Probate Misc.
At that stage, the District Judge vide order dated 15.03.2016 allowed the application filed by the appellants under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC directing that the Will dated 12.03.1989 be sent to hand writing expert for companyparison with the admitted signatures of Natabar Das which are available in the petition, affidavit, vakalatnama and deposition in Probate Case No.19/13 of 1982.
The application filed by the appellant under Order XXVI Rule 10A earlier came to be allowed by District Judge, Puri vide order dated 18.06.2013.
Since the appellant seeks revocation of the Probate Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 on the ground that the Will of Natabar Das is a fraudulent one, the crux of the issue is the genuineness of the Will executed by Natabar Das in favour of the first respondent.
Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 in accordance with the procedure The office of Commissioner Endowments Odisha , Bhubaneshwar vide order dated 25.01.2002 in regard to Misc.
The High Court also directed disposal of the trial proceedings in CS No.2/34 of 2008/2003 at an earlier date.
By order dated 14.08.2014, the High Court set aside the order dated 18.06.2013 and directed the companyrt below to companysider the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A at a later stage of the proceedings that is after closure of the evidence from both sides.
Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997.
In the Probate Miscellaneous Case, the Will in question executed by Mahanta Natabar Das was the subject matter in dispute but according to the appellant plaintiff, the said Natabar Das never executed any Will as Testator in favour of the first respondent Laxmidhar Mahapatra.
The trial companymenced and parties adduced their evidence.
Case No.14/5 of 2000/1997 with the documents companytaining admitted signatures of Natabar Das which are available in the companyrt in the earlier Probate Case No.19/13 of 1982.
Case No.179/2001 decided an application dated 04.01.2001 filed by the first respondent Mahanta Laxmidhar Das and given possession and management of the said Institution of Kabir Chaura and The office of Divisional Inspector of Endowment, Bhubaneshwar vide Report No.165 dated 04.09.2009 under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act issued in favour of the first respondent in regard to the possession and management of the said Math and the management and possession was allowed in favour of the first respondent.
On the other hand, the case of the first respondent is that the Will was executed by the Testator Mahanta Natabar Das and it was a genuine document and it was legally probated by the companypetent Court.
These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CMP No.684 of 2016 in and by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent thereby setting aside the order of the District Judge passed under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC thereby allowing the appellants prayer for sending the signature of the Will in question to hand writing expert for companyparison with Testator Natabar Dass admitted signatures.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
It is stated in the plaint that late Mahanta Natabar Das during his life time filed Probate Case No.19/13 of 1982 for Probate of the Will executed in his favour by one Jasoda Dasi and in the said proceeding, the admitted signature of Mahanta Natabar Das are said to be available in the petition, affidavit, vakalatnama, deposition and the signature of Mahanta Natabar Das appearing in those documents are required to be sent to the Hand writing expert for companyparison along with the Will in question and whether the signature in the Will in question is that of said Natabar Das or number?
