C.R. No. 4761 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4761 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.07.2010 Mr. Justin Shah .....Petitioner Versus Rodrigues Rajeshwar Shah and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.6.2010, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner to examine hand-writing expert, to disprove the 'Will' set up by respondent No.1, to claim that he was the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff, stands dismissed. On an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, respondent No.1 was allowed to be brought on record as legal representative of deceased Washington Shah, the deceased plaintiff. After respondent No.1 was brought on record, petitioner moved an application to contend, that the 'Will' set up by respondent No.1 was forged and fictitious, therefore, it gave no right to respondent No.1 to be impleaded as legal representative of plaintiff to contest the suit. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for the reason, that for being brought on record as the legal representatives in C.R. No. 4761 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the suit, respondent No.1 was not required to prove the 'Will', as the Court was not to decide the right of the legal representative in the suit, but only the case set up by the deceased plaintiff. Whereas the right to claim property and disprove the 'Will' in future, will always be open to the petitioner. In support of this finding the learned trial Court placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs. Bawa Singh, 2002 (3) Civil Court Cases 623. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the learned trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application without going into the pleadings. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that on earlier occasion respondent No.1, claimed himself to be the son of deceased-plaintiff, but when his relationship with the deceased- plaintiff was disputed, he set up the 'Will', which prima facie proves that it was a fictitious 'Will'. Therefore, the petitioner should have been allowed to contest the 'Will'. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The learned trial Court has rightly held, that respondent No.1 was brought on record as legal representative, merely to contest the case filed by the deceased-plaintiff, wherein no right of respondent No.1 vis-a-vis his relationship to claim right in the property was to be decided. The learned trial Court further held, that right of respondent No.1 to inherit the property in event of success of suit, will be independently decided, where the petitioner will have right to contest his claim. No other person had asserted the right to be the legal representative of C.R. No. 4761 of 2010 (O&M) -3- deceased plaintiff except respondent No.1, thus there was no necessity to hold enquiry in this regard. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 30, 2010 R.S.