In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6829 of 2005 Date of decision: August 20, 2009 Shangara Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Gurdeep Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') for examining expert to prove Will against issue No.1-A, has been allowed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff, therefore, he should not have been permitted to lead evidence when the case is already fixed for defendant's evidence. As a matter of fact, while probing the entire record of the case, it transpires that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 21.9.2004 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence. But at that time, issue No.1-A regarding the Will was not existing on the record. However, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya, vide order dated 20.9.2005 framed the issue No.1-A as under :- 1-A. Whether Gurdial Singh executed a Will dated 20.9.1994 in favour of the plaintiff?OPP Vide same order, the trial court directed the plaintiff to lead evidence, if any, in rebuttal. In response to the aforesaid issue, the plaintiff moved an application for summoning the expert for comparison of the disputed signatures which was allowed by the trial court. As a matter of fact, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya, while framing the additional issue Civil Revision No. 6829 of 2005 -2- *** on 20.9.2005, would have given the opportunity to the plaintiff to examine any witness in support of issue No.1-A. However, obviously, for that reason the plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence on the said issue. As such, the order allowing the application moved by the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of issue No.1-A, cannot be said to be suffering from any defect or illegality, inviting interference by this Court. Dismissed. August 20, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge