MANOJ KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE an order dated 24. 8. 2006 the Trial Court dismissed an application of the petitioner for summoning additional witness Mr. C. K. Vaid, advocate for his examination/cross-examination.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner had filed a probate petition and in order to prove the Will, the petitioner filed affidavits of two attesting witnesses. However, during evidence, the affidavit of Mr. C. K. Vaid was not exhibited nor Mr. C. K. Vaid, Advocate was called by the petitioner to be a witness. The evidence continued and the petitioner closed its evidence on 5. 4. 2006, after the cross examination of the witness produced by the petitioner. The case was then fixed for objector?s evidence. During the continuation of objector?s evidence, the petitioner moved an application for summoning Mr. C. K. Vaid, Advocate on the ground that the third witness of the Will had been won over by the opposite side and produced in defence. He (3rd witness) denied having drafted and signed the Will and having presented the same for registration and due to this reason the petitioner wanted to examine the remaining attesting witness.

(3.) THE provision regarding production of additional evidence in order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was deleted by the legislature vide CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999. These amendments were questioned by Salem Advocate Bar Association, t. N. v. Union of India (2003) a SCC 49 case and the Hon?ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amendment. The Hon?ble Supreme Court observed as under: