C.R No.1125 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : February 22, 2010 1. C.R No.1125 of 2010 (O&M) 2. C.R No.1126 of 2010 (O&M) Karnail Singh vs Balwant Singh and others *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.R Nos.1125 and 1126 of 2010. The petitioner had filed a suit claiming that he had inherited 1/4th share of the property of his father by way of intestate succession. In the written statement, the respondents specifically pleaded that the property in the hands of their father was self acquired property by virtue of three Wills. No replication was filed. When the petitioner was being examined as his own witness, in cross-examination he admitted categorically that the three Wills in question had been executed by the respective persons. After the evidence was concluded, the petitioner filed an affidavit in rebuttal. In this affidavit, he sought to backtrack from his admission regarding the Wills C.R No.1125 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: relied upon by the respondents. The respondents moved an application for striking off that affidavit. Apart from this, the petitioner also moved an application for amendment of his plaint wherein he sought to add an averment to the effect that the three Wills were bogus documents. By a common order, the trial Court allowed the application of the respondents for striking off the affidavit of the petitioner, whereas dismissed the application of the petitioner for amendment of his plaint primarily in view of his categorical admission in cross examination as well as omission to take any such pleas despite a categorical stand in this regard in the written statement. Against that part of the order whereby amendment application of the petitioner has been dismissed, CR No.1125 of 2010 has been filed, whereas against that part of the order whereby the application of the respondents for striking of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in rebuttal has been allowed, CR No.1126 of 2010 has been filed. Before this Court as well, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the plea regarding the Wills was not taken after the categorical stand of the respondents in their written statement. In these circumstances, the impugned order/s does not suffer from any material irregularity. Consequently, these revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petitions have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.R No.1125 of 2010 (O&M) ::3::