Civil Revision No.579 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.579 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:17.05.2010 Babu Ram & Ors. .... petitioners Versus Rajbir & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order 07.01.2010, whereby his application for placing onus of issue No.2 on the contesting defendant/respondent No.1, was dismissed. As per the averments, petitioners along with proforma respondents filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction qua the suit property. In the suit, petitioners/plaintiffs were claiming their right to the property left by Smt.Kamlesh wd/o Rakha, who died on 14.06.2000, in their favour. On the other hand, respondent No.1 had propounded a Will dated 01.03.2000 in his favour qua the suit property having been executed by Smt.Kamlesh(deceased). The trial Court vide its order dated 01.05.2006 framed a specific issue with regard to the validity of the Will being issue No.2 and placed the onus to prove the said issue on the Civil Revision No.579 of 2010(O & M) 2 plaintiffs. Issue No.2 reads as follows: “Whether the Will dated 01.03.2000 bearing Vaskia No.534 registered with the office of Sub-Registrar,Panipat allegedly executed by Smt.Kamlesh wife of Rakha in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void, inoperative not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 and the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation?OPP” The plaintiffs moved an application praying that the onus to prove the aforesaid issue be placed upon respondent No.1 on the ground that onus to prove the Will is always on the propounder of the Will. However, trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application vide impugned order. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the whole approach of the learned trial Court by passing the impugned order was illegal and perverse as it has failed to consider the well settled principles of law applicable thereto in its proper perspective. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that in the suit filed by the petitioners they have claimed a declaration that the Will dated 01.03.2000 in favour of respondent No.1 was illegal and null and void. It is well settled that onus to prove an issue is always upon a person who asserts a fact. Herein, the petitioners asserted before the Civil court that Will executed in favour of defendant/respondent No.1 was illegal and thus no exception can be taken to the framing of issue by the trial court and putting the onus upon the petitioners. Moreover, onus to prove in a Civil Suit keeps on shifting. Admittedly, evidence of both the parties have already been recorded in the suit and plaintiffs have been further allowed to lead their Civil Revision No.579 of 2010(O & M) 3 evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendants on the validity of the Will. Thus, in this view of the matter, I find no error in the impugned order. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 17.05.2010 neenu