R.S.A No. 953 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 953 of 2009 Date of decision : November 18, 2009 Likhi and others ...... Appellant (s) v. Sunder Lal and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellans. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for declaration that he had inherited the property of Chaman Lal on the basis of the Will dated 20.7.1994, and that the mutation in favour of the appellants, and subsequent decrees suffered by them are not binding upon his rights. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether in the facts and cirumstances of the present case unregistered Will is surrounded by suspicious cirumstances ? R.S.A No. 953 of 2009 ::2:: ii) Whether the Courts below have misread the evidence ? iii) Whether the findings of the Courts below are result of non-reading of evidence ? iv) Whether the application for additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was rightly dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court ? v) Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse ?” Questions No. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) are questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards question No. (iv), it is not disputed by counsel for the appellants that in the written statement it was the plea of the appellants that the Will in question was a fabricated and forged document. Despite that, no positive evidence was led by the appellants in support of this plea. In the application for leading additional evidence before the lower appellate Court, it was not shown as to why this evidence could not be led despite due diligence. In the circumstances, no error can be found with the order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the application for additional evidence. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 953 of 2009 ::3::