KIRAN CHOUDHRY Vs. RANBIR SINGH MAHENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two revisions are against the order passed by the trial Court allowing for two only of witnesses out of 9 persons cited to be examined as witnesses for the 7th defendant. The 7th defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and she was impleaded on an application filed by the principal contesting defendant, namely, the grand mother of the plaintiff. The suit relates to a claim for succession to the estate of Chaudhry Bansi Lal and to the estate of his son Surender Singh, the father of the plaintiff and the husband of the subsequently impleaded 7th defendant. The impleadment of the 7th defendant had been ordered by this Court and in the course of trial the plaintiff has examined herself and also the witnesses. The suit hinges on alleged Wills said to have been executed by Chaudhry Bansi Lal and Sh. Surender Singh. It appears that the plaintiff has also attempted to bring proof of the genuineness of the signatures found in the alleged Wills. In the course of trial the 7th defendant who has supported the plaintiff has sought permission to cross examine the plaintiff but the trial court earlier rejected the prayer on an observation that the 7th defendant is only a proforma defendant and that therefore the plaintiff cannot be cross -examined by the 7th defendant. After the plaintiffs side was over, the 7th defendant has sought for examination of witnesses and has produced a list of witnesses that include examination of a hand writing expert and the Clerk of the record room in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. titled State v. Somvir Singh. The other witnesses cited are officials who may have secured the signatures and kept in custody the documents that would contain the signatures of Chaudhry Bansi Lal and Surender Singh at various occasions when they were being sworn to high Constitutional Offices and at the time of their assumption of duties and while filing nominations for elections. The objection taken by the contesting defendant was that the 7th defendant had already been denied the cross -examination of the plaintiff and she has therefore no right to offer any evidence or cite any person as a witness. The further contention is that the plaintiff herself has produced a hand writing expert and has tendered evidence with reference to the signatures found in the Wills propounded by her and therefore the 7th defendant cannot have her own luxury of producing witnesses to prove the correctness of the alleged Will. It is also the contention of the contesting defendant that even in the application for summoning the witnesses, no relevance of the witnesses has been set forth as mandated under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. Civil revision No. 3473 of 2012 has been filed by the 7th defendant who has a grievance that all witnesses cited by her have not been permitted to be brought as witnesses. Civil revision No. 3864 of 2012 has been filed by the chief contesting defendant to press forth her plea that the summons ought not to have been issued at all for the several objections which I have already outlined above.

(2.) IT must be remembered that revisional jurisdiction will be confined only to interference against illegal orders and not even to a wrong order in as much as Section 115 CPC has undergone a change and unless the interim order which if it were to have been decided otherwise, would have gone to dispose of the ease, it cannot be a subject of revision to this Court under Section 115 CPC. The point therefore that has to be seen is whether there is anything illegal about the order that could derail the course of justice for intervention before this Court.

(3.) THE objection that the reasons for summoning witnesses have not been given is surely a valid one. A party will not have a liberty of citing several witnesses without taking the court to confidence why the court's process was being taken to summon a particular witness. I will find the provision under Order 16 requiring the purpose for which the witness was to be examined has a salutary principle to put parties on guard of why certain witnesses are being sought to be summoned. I have seen through the list of witnesses. The list contains the names of all officials who ought to have custody of documents containing the authentic signatures of Chaudhry Bansi Lal and his son Surender Singh when they had assumed constitutional offices and when their signatures should have been subscribed in affirmation of the oaths undertaken by them. I elicited from the learned Senior counsel for the 7th defendant that he wants to examine the witnesses to produce the documents in their custody containing the signatures of Chaudhry Bansi Lal and his son. What ought to have been done through the petitions containing request for summons, I have been able to elicit orally. That I would think is sufficient for the first defendant to know if she had not already known why the witnesses were being summoned. I find the relevance of the signatures contained in the documents to the issue that rails for consideration in this case, namely of the truth and validity of the Wills. The trial court itself should have insisted on an appropriate petition under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC and not merely a list of witnesses as it has obtained. I will find that to be not too serious an error to constitute any illegality. An error in procedure which need not be interfered with, since there is no injustice or hardship that could be caused to the contesting defendant.