C. R. No. 2788 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2788 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 29, 2010 Himmat Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Tirlok Singh @ Tilok Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants no.1 and 2 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence moved by defendant-petitioner no.1. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed suit alleging inter alia that Takhat Singh – grandfather of the plaintiff did not execute any Will, much less the alleged Will dated 09.08.1966 registered on 16.05.1968. Defendants no.1 and 2 in their written statement inter alia pleaded that Takhat Singh had executed the aforesaid Will. Accordingly, issue no.1 was framed as to whether Takhat Singh executed valid Will dated 09.08.1966 in favour of Gurdial Singh – predecessor-in-interest of C. R. No. 2788 of 2010 2 defendants no.1 to 6. Onus of the issue was placed on contesting defendants. After both parties led their evidence and plaintiff even led his rebuttal evidence, defendant no.1 moved application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence for permission to examine handwriting expert to prove signatures of the testator on the entry in the register of deed writer, who had allegedly scribed the Will. It was alleged in the application that both attesting witnesses of the Will have since died and scribe of the Will has been examined. Handwriting expert, to prove signatures of the testator, could not be examined by defendants in spite of due diligence and moreover, it was omission and lapse on the part of their counsel. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 opposed the application by filing reply Annexure P-2. It was alleged that the alleged Will is forged and fabricated. The original Will has not been produced and there is only entry in the register of deed writer. The defendants closed their evidence after availing sufficient opportunities. No ground for additional evidence is made out. Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-3, dismissed the application for additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by defendants no.1 and 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners were allowed to lead secondary evidence of the Will and now, the petitioners want to examine handwriting expert to prove the signatures of the testator on the entry in the register of the deed writer. However, the contention cannot be accepted because the petitioners have not made out any ground, much less sufficient ground, for permitting them to lead additional evidence. It was alleged in the application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence that the defendants could not examine handwriting C. R. No. 2788 of 2010 3 expert in spite of due diligence. However, this plea is not borne out from the material on record. Admittedly, the defendants got sufficient opportunities to lead their evidence and the defendants themselves closed their evidence. It is not explained as to how in spite of due diligence, the defendants could not examine handwriting expert as their witness while they were leading their evidence. It is also alleged in the application that it was omission and the lapse on the part of counsel for the defendants. There is no plea that the defendants have changed their counsel. The suit is already almost 20 years old having been instituted on 31.08.1990. No ground for permitting the petitioners to lead additional evidence is made out at all. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 29, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE