KEHAR SINGH Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute relates to the property of one Dhan Kaur who died on 28.3.1986. Jagat Singh, Plaintiff, claimed that property on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed in his favour by Dhan Kaur on 8.10.1971, whereas Sajjan Kaur had executed the Will in his favour on 21.3.1986. Defendant No 2 to 4 also claimed the property of Dhand Kaur, on the basis of Will dated 18.3.1986. The plaintiff and the defendants led evidence on the respective Wills. After the conclusion of the evidence by the parties, the defendants No. 2 to 4 moved an application under Order 18. rule 17-A, Civil Procedure Code, for leading additional evidence. Defendants No. 2 to 4 in the said application sought permission the Court to examine the Finger Print Expert, Sh. P.S. Ahuja. The said application was contested by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide the order dated 10.1.1991. Defendants No. 2 to 4 have challenged the said order, by way of present revision petition.

(2.) It is not disputed that the plaintiff as well as defendants led evidence in respect of the Wills set up by them. The applications under Order 18, rule 17-A, Civil Procedure Code, has been filed only after the parties had concluded their evidence. In the said application, the defendants 2 to 4 have not given any explanation as to why the Finger Print Expert was not examined earlier when they were leading evidence affirmative. Additional evidence cannot be allowed as a matter of course. A party in order to adduce additional evidence has to satisfy that the proposed evidence was either not in the knowledge of the party or could not be such reasons are forthcoming.

(3.) In view of the above, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 14.6.1991.