Civil Writ Petition No.22006 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22006 of 2011 Date of Decision:28.11.2011 Jaswinder Singh @ Jasminder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of death of Kartar Singh son of Thaman Singh, his son Jaswinder Singh @ Jasminder Singh and another-petitioners claimed that the deceased had executed a registered Will dated 28.12.2009 in their favour, whereas Mohinder Pal Kaur(respondent No.4) and another stoutly denied the execution and genuineness of the Will in question and claimed their rights in the property, as per natural succession/inheritance. They raised the objection to sanction the mutation in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the Will. 2. The matter of contested mutations was referred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Khanna. Mohinder Pal Kaur(respondent No.4) and Jaswinder Kaur, daughters of Kartar Singh, moved an application(Annexure P-1) for additional evidence, to examine the hand-writing/document expert, to prove that the Will is a forged and fabricated document and for production of the alleged Will Civil Writ Petition No.22006 of 2011 2 on record. The petitioners contested their prayer and filed the reply(Annexure P-2). 3. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the application for additional evidence filed by Mohinder Pal Kaur(respondent No.4) and Jaswinder Kaur, by way of order dated 09.03.2011(Annexure P-3). 4. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-3), respondent No.4 filed the revision petition(Annexure P-4). She has also filed an application(Annexure P-5) for transfer of the contested mutations from the court of S.D.M., Khanna, to some other Assistant Collector Ist Grade. 5. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, accepted the revision petition, allowed the additional evidence and transferred the mutation proceedings from the court of S.D.M., Khanna, to the court of S.D.M., Khamano, by virtue of impugned order dated 25.08.2011(Annexure P-6). 6. Aggrieved by it, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this regard. 8. As is evident from the record that, the petitioners are seeking their rights in the property in dispute on the basis of Will dated 28.12.2009. On the contrary, respondent No.4 and another are claiming their rights in the property in question on the basis of natural succession/inheritance of Kartar Singh. That being the position on record, the production of original Will, proof of its execution and genuineness is very much essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties. 9. Sequelly, apprehending from the political influence of the Civil Writ Petition No.22006 of 2011 3 petitioners, respondent No.4 has moved the application for transfer of the mutation proceedings from the court of S.D.M., Khanna. To me, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, has rightly allowed the production, additional evidence of the hand-writing/document expert, to prove the execution and genuineness of the indicated Will, by means of impugned order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P-6), which in substance is as under:- “I have heard both the counsels and have also gone through the order in question. In this case, the petitioner is emphasizing on the point that she should have been given an opportunity to lead additional evidence and directing the respondents to produce original Will on file. I am in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner as additional evidence as per CPC under Section 151 can be allowed and to ensure justice, the additional evidence is allowed and original Will be also produced in the court for scrutiny of both the parties. Furthermore, the petitioner has apprehension that she will not get justice from the court of SDM, Khanna and as such to give fair justice to both the parties, I am of the opinion, that this case needs to be transferred and as such all the three cases filed in this case are hereby disposed of and the case relating to both the mutation number 4867 of village Ghungrali and mutation number 3703 of village Bijja is transferred to the court of SDM, Khamano from the court of SDM, Khanna and to ensure speedy and justice, the matter be disposed of in 3 hearings for each party and maximum 60 days. The parties are directed to appear before SDM, Khamano for further proceedings.” 10. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned order(Annexure P-6) is illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this respect. 11. Meaning thereby, the Divisional Commissioner has recorded the cogent grounds in this context. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since, no such patent illegality or legal Civil Writ Petition No.22006 of 2011 4 infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE