C.R. No. 4901 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4901 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.9.2009 Gurdial Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Parminder Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. ,C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 21452-CII of 2009 C.M. is allowed. Affidavit of respondent No.1 is taken on record. C. R. No. 4901 of 2007 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana vide which application moved by the petitioner for examining Navdeep Gupta, handwriting expert by way of additional evidence has been allowed. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application by observing that, since the entire controversy in this case was revolving around the Will C.R. No. 4901 of 2007 2 dated 17.5.1991 set up by the plaintiff in his favour, the defendant has got right to rebut the evidence led by examining Handwriting expert. The impugned order was challenged primarily on the ground that the learned Civil Judge allowed the application by taking wrong facts into consideration. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the report of the handwriting expert was not on record, as mentioned in the application, nor the Will was set up by the plaintiff but by one of the legal representatives of defendants, and the onus to prove the Will was on him. It was for that reason the application for additional evidence was moved. The onus to prove is on the person, who had set up the Will. Though initially stand taken by the respondent was that the report of the handwriting expert was on the record. In view of this the respondent was directed to file an affidavit. In pursuance to the order passed, an affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been admitted that there is no report of handwriting expert on record as on date. In view of the fact that impugned order is based on wrong facts, the revision deserves to be allowed. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the application moved by the respondents for additional evidence afresh by applying the principle applicable for allowing additional evidence. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before C.R. No. 4901 of 2007 3 the learned trial Court on 9.10.2009. Keeping in view the fact that the suit is pending since 1990, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and dispose it of, preferably within six months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE