KARAM SINGH Vs. SMT. GURMEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks a revision of the order dated November 19, 1990 passed by the trial court whereby his application for allowing him to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.

(2.) The property in dispute was owned by Dhanna Singh, real brother of the petitioner. Gurmej Kaur,defendant-respondent is the widow of Dhanna Singh Dhanna Singh is alleged to have left behind a Will dated August 21, 1985 in favour of the petitioner in lieu of services rendered by him to the deceased. The stand of the defendants was that Dhanna Singh never executed any Will and the same is a forged and fabricated document. The Will was executed on August 21, 1985 and Dhanna Singh, admittedly, died on August 28, 1985. The Will bears thumb impression of Dhanna Singh. The plaintiff as also the defendants concluded their evidence and the case was posted for arguments when an application for additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff alleging that Thumb impression of Dhanna Singh taken by the army authorities may be allowed to be compared with the thumb impression appearing on the Will, as according to the plaintiff, it was the only evidence available as proof of deceased's thumb impression.

(3.) The defendants opposed the application by submitting that it has been filed only with a view to fulfil the lacuna in the evidence and that in view of the spirit of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff ought not to be permitted to produce additional evidence as it could not be said that the evidence sought to be produced was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff or he could not with due diligence discover the same. The learned trial Court after considering the matter as already noticed, dismissed the application. Hence this revision.