C.R. No. 6316 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.R. No. 6316 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:-29.9.2010 Jagdev Singh ... Petitioner Versus Avtar Singh & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff – Jagdev Singh against the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Fatehgarh Sahib, allowing the application of the respondents/defendants – Avtar Singh & Ors., for bringing on record the sale deeds for examining the handwriting expert for comparison of disputed signature of Joginder Singh on the Will dated 1.1.1993 with his unimpeachable signatures on those sale deeds. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he was the joint owner in possession to the extent of 1/7 share out of the property in dispute on the basis of the natural succession and that the Will dated 1.1.1993 alleged to have been executed by Joginder Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 to 4 is illegal, null and void and a created document. According to him Joginder Singh was his father, who died on 26.4.1997 leaving behind him and C.R. No. 6316 of 2010 (O&M) -2- defendants No. 1 to 4 as his sons and defendants No. 6 and 7 as his daughters and his widow Vidya Wati, who died on 8.3.2002. He has succeeded to 1/7 share in the property in dispute so left by the deceased on the basis of natural inheritance. Defendants No. 1 to 4 forged the signatures of Joginder Singh on the alleged Will dated 1.1.1993 and got mutation No. 2029 sanctioned on the basis thereof regarding his estate and that he challenged that mutation and the matter is still pending before the Collector. The defendants in their written statement took the plea that the Will was duly executed by Joginder Singh, in their favour. In view of those pleadings, the following issue was framed by the trial Court:- “ Whether unregistered Will dated 1.1.1993 is illegal and null and void?OPP” The parties produced their evidence in support of their respective contentions. The plaintiff filed an application for producing additional evidence, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.2.2010. That order was challenged by the defendants in Civil Rev. No. 2373 of 2010 , but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2010. That order was mainly contested by the defendants on the ground that the onus for proving the above said issue should have been placed upon them and as such the plaintiff had no right to produce any evidence in rebuttal to prove that issue. Though this Court observed in the order that the issue was not properly framed and the onus to prove the Will dated 1.1.1993 should have been placed upon the defendants yet, as is clear from the contentions made by learned counsel of the plaintiff, no application was ever moved before the trial Court for reframing that issue. It was in rebuttal to the said C.R. No. 6316 of 2010 (O&M) -3- additional evidence permitted to the plaintiff that the defendant came up with the said application, which was allowed by the trial Court and it is that order which is under challenge in the present revision petition. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that once it was observed by this Court that the onus of proving the issue regarding execution of the Will dated 1.1.1993 should have been placed upon the defendants, the plaintiff has no right to lead the evidence in rebuttal, which has been allowed by the trial Court. There is no force in this submission of the counsel and it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or that the same was passed by the trial Court as a result of some irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction. Once the plaintiff was allowed to produce additional evidence on the said issue, the defendants have the right to produce their evidence in rebuttal to the same. In that situation this revision petition, which is without any merit, is hereby dismissed. September 29, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge