Civil Revision No.5291 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5291 of 2011 Date of Decision:01.09.2011 Prema ......Petitioner Versus Rajbir .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emitting from the record is that, Rajbir son of Phoolpati- respondent-plaintiff(for short “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Prema widow of Late Krishan-petitioner-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”) for a decree of declaration to the effect that mutation of inheritance bearing No.1706 sanctioned on 16.01.2009 by the A.C.Ist Grade, Hansi, in respect of the land in question and the subsequent revenue record depicting the petitioner-Prema, widow of Krishan, is illegal, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land, in any manner. 2. As, during the course of proceedings of the suit, petitioner-Prema, while appearing as DW1 admitted the fact with regard to the execution of the Will executed by Megha, paternal grandfather of her husband, during his lifetime, therefore, the Will was ordered to be exhibited by the trial Court by over-ruling the objection in this regard. The case was adjourned for further cross-examination of petitioner-Prema(DW1), by virtue of impugned order dated 22.07.2011(Annexure P-5). Civil Revision No.5291 of 2011 2 3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-5) of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect. 5. As is evident from the record that, the trial Court has only exhibited the Will, the factum of which was admitted by petitioner-Prema(DW1) and nothing else. The argument of the learned counsel that, since, the exhibition of Will would prejudice the case of the petitioner-defendant, lacks merit. 6. It is well-settled proposition of law that, the mere exhibiting a document(Will) does not dispense with its proof and the parties relying upon it, are bound to prove the same, in accordance with law. The admissibility or otherwise of the Will and whether the evidence is beyond pleadings or not, will be decided by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. 7. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly over-ruled the objection, exhibited the Will and recorded the valid grounds in this relevant connection in the impugned order. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5291 of 2011 3 C.M.No.21219-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5291 of 2011 Present: Mr.Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE