Faiz Murtaza Ali vs Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and Another

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 15th July, 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the petitioner''s I.A. No.

3506 of 2010.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant prayed for summoning certain documents in I.A. No. 3506 of 2010 but that

has been rejected on the ground that in another application being I.A. No. 3153 of 2010 almost same prayer has been made and while hearing the

matter on I.A. No. 3153 of 2010 prayer was confined only to some of the relief''s which was not disputed by the petitioner and according to that

fact situation, order was passed for calling upon records, as prayed on that day i.e. on 13th May, 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that signature on the Will is required to be got examined to find out the genuineness of the

Will and submitted that though the order dated 17th September 2010 passed in the present case by the learned Single Judge for summoning of the

original Will but, according to him, that has not been acted upon yet.

Be that as it may, this is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 15th July, 2011, whereby the appellant''s prayer for summoning of the

document has been rejected.

We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter and after giving complete observation

and facts of the case rejected the prayer of the appellant. We do not find any just reason to invoke appellate jurisdiction under Letters Patent

Appeal to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of summoning of the records, where some relevant records have

already been summoned.

There being no force, the appeal is dismissed.