GUNWANT KAUR Vs. KARAMJIT KAUR GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this order, two connected civil revision petitions (C.R. No. 1360 and 1395 of 2021) shall stand disposed of.

(2.) The petitioner (Gunwant Kaur) is common in both the revision petitions. She is the plaintiff in one suit and the defendant in another suit. She is the widow of late S. Amarjit Singh. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel representing the respondent has admitted that she stands acquitted of criminal charge of murdering her husband (Late S. Amarjit Singh). She claims that she has exclusively succeeded to the property left behind by her husband being his widow as also on the basis of testamentary disposition dtd. 4/2/2004. The couple had no children. In the civil suit (Karamjit Kaur Grewal and Another v. Gunwant Kaur and Others), it is claimed by the plaintiffs that they, being parents of late S. Amarjit Singh, (Karamjit Kaur and her husband claim that they adopted S. Amarjit Singh) are entitled to inherit the property of their deceased son and the defendant Gunwant Kaur, being his murderer, is not entitled for the inheritance.

(3.) During the pendency of both the suits, the petitioner filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC seeking permission from the Court to appear as a witness after examination of the other witnesses. It has been asserted that the original Will, executed by late S. Amarjit Singh, is lying in the office of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, which has been summoned. She has also summoned the record from the Judicial Record Room Patiala, where the record pertaining to purchase of LIC policy in her name is lying. She has also summoned the attesting witnesses of the Will dtd. 4/2/2004. Per contra, the opposite party in both the suits has contested the application on the ground with the plea that the main object of Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC cannot be permitted to be defeated as she would subsequently fill in the blanks or lacuna in the evidence of her witnesses.