AMARJIT KAUR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana dismissing the application of defendant No. 2 -petitioner filed under Order 18 Rule 17 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code) seeking permission for adducing additional evidence by producing an expert and to rebut the evidence of the expert produced by the plaintiff -respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case unfolded in this revision petition and necessary for deciding the controversy raised are that plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit for grant of declaration to the effect that plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 and defendant -respondent No. 4 are in joint possession of two suit properties and are owners to the extent of 1/4th share each being the natural and class I heirs of S. Tara Singh deceased. A prayer has also been made for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 -petitioner from alienating the suit property in any manner. A further declaration has been sought by plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 that the registered will dated 5.12.1994 purported to be executed by late S. Tara Singh in favour of defendant No. 2 -Petitioner is void, illegal forged, fabricated and fictitious. The plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 have also alleged in the suit that defendant No. 2 -petitioner on the basis of registered will has got transferred to herself one of the suit properties bearing Municipal Unit No. B -XVI -571/572 (old) and B -XVI -729 (new). Defendant No. 2 -petitioner controverted the averments made in the plaint filed by plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 with regard to the registered will dated 5.12.1994 executed in her favour by her deceased father -in -law S. Tara Singh. She has categorically denied that it was in any manner void, illegal, forged, fabricated or a fictitious document. The Civil Judge on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as nine issues on 26.9.1996. Onus of issue No. 3 which relates to proving illegality, forgery or fictitiousness of the will was placed on plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 and issue No. 3 reads as under: -

(3.) I have heard Shri Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for defendant No. 2 -petitioner and Shri J.S. Chaudhary, senior counsel for plaintiff -respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the record with their assistance.