IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.181 of 2009 Date of Decision:14.1.2009. Shail Bala ..........Petitioner. Versus Atul Kumar and others. ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Robin Dutta,Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff. JASWANT SINGH,J. By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the order dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P/7) whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order and order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P/9), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhari, whereby her application to send stated documents to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal for comparison with each other was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as put by the petitioner- plaintiff are that earlier husband was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 52 kanals 13 marlas. He executed a Will dated 11.1.2001 in her favour vide which he had bequeathed all his property in her favour. Thus, she being the sole legal heir of her late husband, the suit land devolved upon her and she became owner in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendants i.e. her three sons and two daughters, in connivance with each other and in collusion with Halqa Patwari got sanctioned mutation in CR NO.181 of 2009 2 their favour regarding inheritance of her husband on 30.8.2001 whereas the mutation should have been entered in her name alone on the basis of Will dated 11.1.2001. Accordingly, she filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The stand of the respondents-defendants was that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of their father Late Sh.Rajeshwar Parshad Goel and he had never executed a Will and the alleged Will set up by their mother was a forged document. Issues were framed on 23.8.2003. The case was listed for plaintiff's evidence on 12.2.2004 when no evidence was produced and the case was adjourned to 12.8.2004. On 12.8.2004, an affidavit comprising 9 pages of petitioner-plaintiff was filed and the case was adjourned to 20.8.2004 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. On 20.8.2004, her cross examination was completed and since no witness was present the case was adjourned to 19.1.2005 for remaining evidence of plaintiff at her own responsibility. On 19.1.2005 despite last opportunity the case was adjourned to 25.4.2005 for examination of witness-Dr.Vijay Gupta only. No other PW was present on 19.1.2005. On 25.4.2005 on the application of defendant no.2, the case was adjourned to 3.5.2005 for plaintiff's evidence at her own responsibility. On 3.5.2005, one PW namely Dr.Vijay Gupta was present and was examined and the request for adjourning the case for leading further evidence was declined. Evidence of the plaintiff was ordered to be closed by Court order. Thereafter the defendants led their evidence and when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, an application was moved by CR NO.181 of 2009 3 the petitioner-plaintiff in May 2007 for sending the original Will dated 11.1.2001 and original General Power of Attorney dated 14.6.1999 executed by Sanjay Kumar-respondent no.3 and partnership deed dated 27.9.1995 to Forensic Laboratory, Madhuban for comparison with each other. It was stated that since the defendants had denied the genuineness of the signatures of her husband- Late Sh.Rajeshwar Parshad Goel, the sending of those documents to the Forensic Laboratory was necessary to ascertain the genuineness of the Will. In the reply filed it was stated that the application at such a belated stage was not maintainable when the plaintiff throughout was aware with regard to the existence of all the documents. It was further stated that the initial burden to prove the genuineness of the Will was upon the plaintiff and since she had failed to prove the Will and further even her evidence had been closed on 3.5.2005, the application deserved to be dismissed. After hearing arguments and considering the documents on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. It was held that the applicant-plaintiff's evidence in affirmative was closed vide order dated 3.5.2005 and thereafter defendants' evidence had been concluded and throughout that period the applicant-plaintiff had remained silent and therefore, at that belated stage she could not be allowed to adduce additional evidence. It was further held that even otherwise the documents which have been produced for the purpose of comparison with the disputed Will were not admitted documents between the parties and at that stage there was no standard signatures of Late Sh.Rajeshwar Parshad Goel on the file and hence the prayer could not be accepted in view of the settled proposition of CR NO.181 of 2009 4 law that comparison of disputed signatures can only be made with standard signatures. It was held that the onus was upon the petitioner-plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the Will by adducing the said evidence during her evidence in affirmative and the same could not be adduced at the stage of rebuttal evidence. Hence the present revision petition challenging the orders dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P/7) and 20.11.2008 (Annexure P/9) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhari. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perusing the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. It is not disputed that after the framing of issues on 23.8.2003, the case had been listed on six occasions during a period of almost two years for the petitioner-plaintiff's evidence and out of which five effective opportunities were available to her. On two occasions last opportunity had been granted and thereafter vide order dated 3.5.2005 the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was ordered to be closed by Court order. The same was not challenged and the same was accepted. It is now at this belated stage in this revision petition that challenge has been made to the same,which cannot be accepted. It has also come on record that the documents containing the signatures of Late Sh.Rajeshwar Parshad Goel, sought to be got compared with the disputed Will by sending them to Forensic Laboratory, Madhuban, are not admitted documents and have not been proved on the file. It is also an admitted case that there are no standard signatures of Late Sh.Rajeshwar Parshad Goel available on the file from which comparison of the disputed signatures can be made. Petitioner-plaintiff has not given any explanation CR NO.181 of 2009 5 or reason that the said documents could not be adduced in her evidence in affirmative to establish her case based on the Will in question. The petitioner-plaintiff being the propounder of the Will to succeed was obligated to prove the signatures of her late husband by producing her own Handwriting Expert in her evidence in affirmative . Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly held that the applicant-plaintiff could not be allowed at such a belated stage, when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. For the reasons recorded above,finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 14.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge