The court affirmed that procedural integrity mandates timely evidence submission, emphasizing the necessity for documentation to validate claims regarding the authenticity of a Will.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri P. V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 09.09.2024 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao has disposed of two applications and objections in this regard.

3. In order to put the matter in a presepctive, it is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the property in question belonged to one Shiv Balak, son of Kanhai. The petitioner being the real nephew of Shiv Balak claimed rights in the property on the basis of succession whereas another claim was put up by the private respondent no.2 who was the niece on the basis of an unregistered Will said to have been executed by Shiv Balak in her favour.

4. The Consolidation Officer in the first instance after hearing the parties did not accede to the evidence led by the respondent no.2 as a consequence the Will dated 08.05.1998 was held to be not proved and the objections of the private respondent no.2 were rejected upholding the claim of the petitioner.

5. The matter was escalated by the respondent no.2 by filing an appeal which found favour with the first appellate court as a consequence the petitioner being aggrieved preferred a revision. While the said revision was pending, the petitioner moved an application dated 19.04.2017 seeking leave of the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned to summon the necessary record from the office of the Registrar as it was stated by the petitioner that the deceased, namely, Shiv Balak had executed certain sale deeds and his thumb expressions and signatures were available in the office of the Sub Registrar and the same can be taken as an evidence of reference to be compared with the signatures/thumb impressions on the alleged Will set up by the private respondent no.2 so that the authenticity of the Will could be clearly established.

6. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 09.05.2017, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.12. However, on the very same day, the private respondent no.2 had moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 09.05.2017 and on the said application itself, an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation recalling the order dated 09.05.2017 and also invited objections to the said application fixing 29.05.2017 as the next date. In the meantime, the private respondent no.2 moved another application dated 13.06.2017 urging the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the issue of maintainability first.

7. The private respondent no.2 once again on 08.01.2024 moved almost another identical application urging the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider and decide the issue of maintainability first.

8. The private respondent no.2 had also filed objections against the application moved by the petitioner dated 19.04.2017 i.e. in respect of getting the thumb impressions of the deceased Shiv Balak compared by an hand writing expert. It is in this backdrop that the application dated 13.06.2017, objections dated 17.08.2017 and application dated 08.01.2024 came to be decided by order dated 09.09.2024 which is under challenge.

9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao rejected the two applications of the private respondent no.2 whereby it was sought that the issue of maintainability of the revision be decided first and in so far as the application preferred by the petitioner for leading expert evidence was concerned, the same was turned down on the premise that the issue of Will was in knowledge of the parties right from the commencement of litigation and since they did not bring any material on record before the court of first instance, hence it was not expedient to permit such evidence at this stage of the revision.

10. Shri Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.09.2024 in so far as it