C.R. No.7183 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7183 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Harbans Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Amarjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 12.11.2011 passed by the trial Court whereby the application of the defendants-respondents to get the signatures of Sher Singh- executant on the Will dated 12th September, 1999 compared from the finger-print expert by way of an additional evidence, was allowed. 2. Briefly the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit on 04.04.2006 challenging the unregistered Will dated 12th September, 1999 in which issue No.2 was framed on 27th October, 2007 to the following effect:- “2. Whether the un-registered Will dated 12.09.1999 allegedly executed by deceased Sher Singh in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is illegal, null and void and is a forged and fabricated C.R. No.7183 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: document ? OPP” 3. The said issue No.2 was later on modified on 01.12.2009 to the following effect: “2. Whether Sher Singh executed a valid Will dated 12.09.1999? If so its effect ? OPD” 4. The defendants-respondents, in order to prove the validity of the Will, had examined one of the attesting witnesses. However, the plaintiff, in rebuttal, got the signature of Sher Singh on the Will from a finger-print expert who had opined in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. It was thereupon that an application for additional evidence was filed for getting signatures of Sher Singh on Will, compared from another finger-print expert by the defendants- respondents. The said application having been allowed by the trial court, the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 5. The trial court while allowing the application, granted two opportunities to the defendants-respondents for producing the documents and getting it compared from an expert. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants-respondents could not be allowed to lead additional evidence by way of rebuttal to the rebuttal produced by the plaintiff- petitioner. It was further submitted that the additional evidence as per provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the “Code”) was taken away from the statute book w.e.f. Ist July, 2002. In the end, alternatively it was urged that in case the Court does not agree with his submissions, then the opportunities as has been allowed by the trial Court should not exceed. C.R. No.7183 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 8. The rules of procedure are subservient to and handmaid of justice. No strait-jacket formula can be adopted in all cases. The facts and circumstances in individual case would decide as to how the provisions of the Code are to be applied to do substantial justice between the parties. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is an appropriate case where the Court under Section 151 of the Code can allow the prayer for leading additional evidence as the said Section provides for exercise of inherent powers by the Court wherever it is considered appropriate by the Court. Reiterating the facts of the present case, here the onus to prove issue No.2 was on the defendants-respondents, who had produced an attesting witness to prove the same as required by law. However, the plaintiff- petitioner had got the signatures on the Will dated 12.09.1999 compared from a hand-writing expert who had given an opinion contrary to the version of the attesting witness. It was thereafter that it was sought by way of additional evidence to compare the signatures of Sher Singh on Will dated 12.09.1999 by an expert. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that trial court had erred in granting two opportunities to the defendants-respondents for producing the documents and getting them compared by an expert. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is however, clarified that as noticed by the trial court only two opportunities shall be afforded to the defendants-respondents for examining an expert to compare the documents by an expert. Since, the suit is of the C.R. No.7183 of 2011 (O & M) ::4:: year, 2006, the trial court is directed to expedite the conclusion of the suit as expeditiously as possible. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 14, 2011 sukhpreet C.R. No.7183 of 2011 (O & M) ::5::