IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.08.2010 C.R.No.4411 of 2008 Amrit Lal ...Petitioner Versus Monu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Ms. Neena Guleria, Advocate, for Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 11.06.2008, whereby an application for permission to lead additional evidence sought by defendant No.1-petitioner herein, was declined. Siri Ram was predecessor-in-interest to the parties. The plaintiffs are his daughters and wife, whereas defendants are his sons. The defendants relied upon Will dated 18.07.1996 allegedly executed by Siri Ram on the basis of which mutation was said to be sanctioned in their favour. It is the said mutation, which is subject matter of challenge by the plaintiffs in the suit, wherein the plaintiffs claimed 4/7 share as legal heirs of deceased Siri Ram. C.R.No.4411 of 2008 Defendant No.1-petitioner relied upon Will dated 18.07.1996 in his written statement, however, no evidence was led by defendant No.1- petitioner in support of such Will except examining himself as DW-1. Defendant No.1-petitioner closed his evidence voluntarily on 22.02.2005. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of the remaining defendants. It was at the fag end of the trial, defendant No.1-petitioner moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence, so as to prove Will dated 18.07.1996. It is the said application, which has been declined by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. Defendant No.1-petitioner has taken a specific plea and propounded Will dated 18.07.1996 as executed by Siri Ram. The onus to prove the said Will was on the propounder. Defendant No.1-petitioner has not led any evidence in support of the execution of the Will. He voluntarily closed his evidence on 22.02.2005. After closing of the evidence, defendant No.1-petitioner cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence, so as to fill up the lacuna in the case. There is nothing on record that the evidence in respect of Will could not be produced in spite of due diligence. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 27.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2