A suit challenging the validity of a Will, which has already been upheld through a compromise in an earlier suit, is not maintainable without obtaining permission from the court.

1. This revision has been filed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Munsiff Thana Mandi dt. 28th of Jan05 in a civil suit titled Mohd Sadiq and ors v. Ghulam Rasool, vide which the preliminary issue framed by the learned Munsiff `whether the suit is maintainable or not has been decided in favour of the respondents.

2. The respondents filed a suit for declaration that the Will dated 22nd of March74 executed by one Nazam Din, S/o Alkah Din, R/o Doda, Tehsil Thanna Mandi, in favour of defendant-petitioner herein is in operative, null and void on the rights of respondents being forged one with consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from using this Will as valid.

3. On notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and filed written statement in which he pleaded that the respondents had already filed a civil suit challenging the Will in question on 4th of Aug92 before the court of learned District Judge, Rajouri, which was transferred to the court of learned Sub Judge, Rajouri. In the said suit, a compromise between the parties was effected. The respondents in the said suit had conceded the claim of the petitioners. Respondents No.5 and 6, though were not the plaintiffs in the earlier suit but they were signatories to the compromise. Hence, the said suit was dismissed. It was thus prayed before the learned trial court that the suit be dismissed being not maintainable.

4. The learned trial court framed following issues:-

"1. Whether the Will dated 22.3.1974 executed by late Nazam Din, S/o Allah Din, R/o Dodaj, Tehsil Thanamandi is forged or not? OPP.

2. Whether the grand-father of the plaintiffs i.e. Nazam Din and father of the defendant was in possession of land to the extent of their share? OPP.

3. Whether in the Mohamadan Law, Will in favour of the heirs is valid or not? OPP.

4. Whether the defendant intend to dispossess the plaintiffs from their shareof land? OPP.

5. Whether this suit is maintainable or not?. OPD "

5. Issue No.5, as indicated above was treated as preliminary issue. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned order held that the suit is maintainable, aggrieved by which the present revision petition has been preferred.

6. At the very outset, it may be stated that the respondents are playing a game of hide and seek with the court. Respondents were duly served and on their behalf, Mr ZA Mughal, learned counsel appeared on 7th of April06, and sought adjournment. The case was taken up on 9th of June06, but no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. On 1st of Sept06, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared but there was no appearance on behalf of respondents. The petition came to be admitted on the said date. The case was again taken up on 5th of March07. Mr Harbans Lal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner but there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. On 16th of March07, again the petition was adjourned at the request of Mr ZA Mughal, learned counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, the case was listed on 5th of April07. On the said date, neither the respondents nor their counsel appeared and exparte proceedings were drawn against them and the case was directed to be listed after two weeks. On 27lh of April07, when the case was taken up for hearing, Mr ZA Mughal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondents and the exparte proceedings drawn against the respondents were set aside. The petition was directed to be listed for consideration after two weeks. Thereafter, on 18th of May07, Mr ZA Mughal, learned counsel for the respondents was not present and adjournment was sought by the proxy counsel appearing on his behalf. The petition was listed on 1st of June07 but again there was no representation on behalf of respondents. This shows that the respondents are intentionally and deliberately delaying the disposal of this case, and therefore, the case was heard in the absence of respondents or the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document