IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.:24/2011 Reserved on: 10.3.2011 Decided on:23.3. 2011 _____________________________________________ Jamna Devi and another. …Petitioners. Versus Gulabu Devi and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) have challenged the will, which was executed and registered on 25.2.1984. Attesting witnesses, Scribe as well as Registrar, who had registered the will in question, have died. The factum of their death came to the knowledge of the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’ for convenience sake) when the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 evidence was already adduced and ambiguities arising were pointed out by the learned counsel. It is further stated that there was no photocopy available at the time of executing of will and the practice was to note down the will in the relevant register by the Clerk of the Registrar. 2. Civil Suit bearing No. 34 of 2008 was instituted on 17.6.2008. The issues were framed on 27.8.2009. The case was listed for defendants’ evidence on 2.1.2010. Defendants did not produce their evidence and had not taken steps for summoning the defendants. Thereafter, case was listed on 4.3.2010 for recording statements of defendants’ witnesses. No evidence was led on 4.3.2010. Thereafter defendants moved an application under order 8 rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing some documents on record. The application was allowed on 5.3.2010. Defendants examined three witnesses and closed their evidence. The case was listed for rebuttal evidence on 26.5.2010. Thereafter, the case was listed for arguments on 2.8.2010 and 27.8.2010. The case was listed for final hearing on 8.9.2010. Defendants moved application for leading additional evidence. The same was contested by the plaintiffs. Learned trial court dismissed the application on 6.12.2010. 3 3. Mr. Ashwani Pathak has strenuously argued that the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration settled principles of law while adjudicating application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the pleadings as well as order dated 6.12.2010 carefully. 5. The will was executed on 25.2.1984. Plaintiffs have closed their evidence and thereafter the evidence have also been led by the defendants. Rebuttal evidence was led by the plaintiffs on 26.5.2010. This case was listed thrice for arguments. Defendants have not made any ground for leading additional evidence. The application preferred by the defendants lacks better particulars and bona fide. It cannot be presumed that the defendants were not aware of the factum of the death of marginal witnesses, scribe as well as Registrar. Learned trial court has given them repeated opportunities to lead their evidence. The application has been filed merely to delay the proceedings by the defendants. The defendants have failed to make out a case to adduce additional evidence. 4 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.3. 2011. *awasthi*