Civil Revision No. 2108 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2108 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.04.2009. Surinder Kumar alias Kaka Petitioner Versus Smt. Savitri Devi ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. In the course of the trial, the defendant therein (and respondent herein) entered the witness box, as her own witness. On the date she entered the witness box, she had brought along the original will dated 21.8.1989 executed by her husband. She had further undertaken to produce (again) the original will as and when it was required for the purpose of comparison of disputed signatures of her husband. As she did not concede the signatures, purporting to be of that her husband on the certain rent receipts, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application for production of the original will. The plea was rejected by the learned Trial Court. However, this Court allowed the plea in revision and issued a direction to the respondent herein to produce the original will dated 21.8.1989. She did produce Civil Revision No. 2108 of 2009 -2- **** that will as well. However, the plaintiff herein raised a plea at the trial that the will produced was not relevant in the present case. In the light of those circumstances, the learned Trial Court declined to issue a direction to the respondent herein to produce the original will by noticing the averment by the respondent herein that there was no other will in her possession. The defendant-respondent is in revision against that order. It is argued that the non issuance of a direction to the defendant-respondent to produce the original will (other than the will dated 21.8.1989) amounted to violation of order of this Court. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that this Court had directed the respondent/defendant to produce the original will dated 21.8.1989. The only purpose was to get the signatures of the testator thereof i.e. husband of the respondent compared with the purported signatures of his upon certain rent receipts. Through out the relevant application, the defendant-petitioner has not averred that the testator under reference had executed any other will ( i.e. any will other than the will dated 21.8.1989). In that view of things, it is apparent that respondent herein had complied with the order of this Court by producing the will dated 21.8.1989 before the learned Trial Court and informing the Court that she would produce the original will as and when ordered by the Court for the purpose of comparison. The petition is devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. April 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge