Civil Revision No. 4846 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4846 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.03.2009. Kuldip Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Chatter Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that the parties are at issue with regard to validity or otherwise of the registered will dated 13.7.1982. There is no dispute that the impugned will had been scribed by Lakha Ram Sharma and that Sohan Lal and P.C.Khosla are its attesting witnesses. A plea filed by the petitioner herein for being allowed to adduce secondary evidence came to be allowed by ths Court in Civil Revision No. 4565of 2006. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner herein examined on Kartar Chand Chaudhary who was attesting witness of yet another will dated 24.3.1977 which had been executed Puran Singh in favour of Parkash Kaur. He identifed the signature of Puran Singh (testator of the will dated 13.7.1982) on the phototstat copy thereof which had Civil Revision No. 4846 of 2008 -2- *** earlier been produced by an official of the office of the Sub Registrar concerned (DW-1 Harbans Kaur). It is apparent from the record that two attesting witnesses and also the scribe of the will dated 13.7.1982 are dead. In the light thereof, the impugned will dated 13.7.1982 was exhibited as Ex. RX/2 in the statement of Kartar Chand Chaudhary. Thereafter, the respondents herein applied for leave of the Court to de-exhibit that document (Ex.RX/2). The learned Trial Court granted that relief by observing that the will dated 13.7.1982 (Ex. RX/2) could not have been exhibited because Kartar Chand Chaudhary was not attesting witness thereof. The impugned factual premise noticed by the learned Trial Court is incorrect. Infact, Kartar Chand Chaudhary never claimed to be an attesting witness of the will dated 13.7.1982 (Ex. RX/2). He being an attesting witness of the other will (of which Puran Chand was the testator), claimed familiarity with the signatures of testator of the will dated 13.7.1982. The learned Trial Court did not notice that both the attesting witnesses and also the scribe of the will dated 13.7.1982 are dead. It, thus, proceeded on a factual incorrect premise. In that view of things, this petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the relevant plea afresh on 'AS IS WHERE IS BASIS'. Disposed of accordingly. March 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge