KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. SAROJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Krishan Kumar, aggrieved by order dated 10.12.2012, Annexure P/3 passed by learned trial court, thereby dismissing application Annexure P/1 moved by defendant-petitioner for additional evidence, has approached this court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order Annexure P/3.

(2.) Respondent-Plaintiff Saroj Rani has filed suit against defendant-petitioner for recovery of money. The plaintiff has claimed herself to be sole proprietor of M/s Ganga Ram Hant Ram on the basis of Will dated 17.1.1999 allegedly executed in her favour by her father-in-law Hant Ram who was allegedly sole proprietor of the said firm earlier.

(3.) The defendant in his application Annexure P/1 for additional evidence alleged that the plaintiff has not produced the alleged Will dated 17.1.1999 executed in her favour by Hant Ram whereas in fact Hant Ram executed registered Will dated 11.7. 1995 in favour of his son Raj Kumar, also since deceased, (husband of respondent-plaintiff). Consequently, the plaintiff cannot be said to be sole proprietor of the said firm. Consequently, defendant by way of additional evidence wanted to produce and prove Will dated 11.7.1995.