Karnataka HC seeks explanation from judge for returning original will despite statutory preservation requirement

The petitioner brought an eviction and delivery-of-vacant-possession suit, claiming rights over the ground floor under a Will dated 9 February 2014 executed by Smt. B.K. Sujatha.

The respondents disputed the Will’s genuineness and alleged it was forged and fabricated.

In the suit, the trial court allowed the respondents’ application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC and directed the petitioner to produce the original Will.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, contending that the Will had been probated and that an earlier application for similar relief had been rejected

1. Whether the trial court was justified in directing the petitioner to produce the original Will when its genuineness was disputed and ownership was claimed on its basis

2. Whether the impugned order warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

Order XI Rule 14 CPC permits the court to require production of a document relevant to matters in question in the suit.

Section 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as applied by the Court, requires the District Judge or District Delegate to preserve the original Will in respect of which probate or letters of administration have been granted

In exercising Article 227 jurisdiction, the High Court considered whether the impugned order suffered from an infirmity warranting supervisory interference.

No judicial precedent was relied upon.

The Will’s genuineness was directly disputed, and Issue No. 1 required the petitioner to establish ownership on the basis of that Will. The original document could therefore assist the trial court in examining the forgery allegation and deciding the ownership issue effectively

The Court also considered that the original Will was in the petitioner’s custody, although Section 294 required its preservation by the probate court; its return appeared to be a serious lapse

In these circumstances, the trial court’s production order was justified and disclosed no infirmity warranting interference under Article 227

It further directed the Registrar General to obtain an explanation from the judge who ordered the Will’s return, and to place the explanation and report before the Court by 10 December 2026.