IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 34 of 2011 Decided on: 13.07.2011 Megh Singh …Petitioner. Versus Joginder Singh & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) LRs of Shri Piar Singh served but not present. Hence, proceeded against ex parte. CMP No. 359 of 2011 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the LRs of respondent No. 2 are brought on record. CMPMO No. 34 of 2011 3. By means of this petition the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') has challenged the order dated 07.12.2010 wherein the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the two Wills 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? -: 2 :- to Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures of testator Basant Singh has been dismissed. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he is the sole heir of Basant Singh on the basis of a Will stated to have been executed on 25th July 1991. According to the plaintiff, Will being set up by the defendants on the basis of which they claim to be the legal heirs of Basant Singh was a forged and false Will. The parties led evidence and when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, he filed the present application praying that both the Wills be sent to the Handwriting Expert to opine whether the signatures on both the Wills are of the same person. The learned trial Court rejected this application. Hence, the present petition. 5. A Will has to be proved in accordance with the rules of evidence. At least one attesting witness has to be examined. Cross-examination of these witnesses would be relevant to show whether Will was actually executed by Basant Singh or not. In case, the plaintiff doubted the signatures of Basant Singh on second Will, there is nothing which prevented him from moving such application at the time of framing of issues or when he led evidence. Even in the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no explanation worth the fact as to why this application was not filed at the earlier stage. The suit in question was filed in the year 2003 and seven years later, no -: 3 :- such application could have been entertained without reasonable cause being shown. 6. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is dismissed accordingly. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the case is being sent back immediately so as to reach the trial Court before the next date of hearing. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24th August, 2011. The learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit latest by 30th November, 2011. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 13, 2011 (rajni)