HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 08.01.2011 (Annexure P9) by which evidence of the defendants/petitioners has been ordered to be closed. Before I delve into the controversy raised in the present revision petition, it would be relevant to refer to an earlier litigation between the same parties. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit for declaration in which the plaintiffs are claiming their right over the property in dispute on the basis of natural succession and the defendants have set up a registered Will to defeat the right of the plaintiffs. During the trial of the case, an order was passed on 21.12.2010 which reads as under: - "DW -8, DW -9 and DW -10 have come present and partly cross -examined. Their further cross -examinations are deferred on the request of learned counsel for defendant No. 5 as he is not feeling well due to accident. Affidavit in form of chief examination of DW -11 Dr. Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan tendered. Copy supplied. His cross -examination could not be recorded as the copy of report has not been supplied before one week of the date of hearing. Present DWs are bound down for next date. One Krishan Gopal clerk from the office of Sub - Registrar Ludhiana has come present and produced the Bahi No. 3 continuing vasikas No. 601 to 700 except Vasika No. 632. Same has been placed on the file and Ahlmad is directed to give the receipt in this regard to the concerned official.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for defendant brought to my notice that application was filed by defendant on 18.12.2010 to serve the attached notice upon the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 and which was ordered to be put up with the file on the date fixed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs suffered the statement and did not admit the writings attached with the application. So accordingly application is disposed of.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for defendant also brought to my notice that another application was filed to serve the attached notice upon the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 to produce the alleged original will dated 28.8.2006. The copy of the application is supplied to the learned counsel for plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, I am of the considered view that the Will dated 28.8.2006 is not in question. So, there is no need to serve the attached notice upon the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5. It appears that the defendants have already availed numerous opportunities to conclude the evidence and he wants to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. That is why separate application has been filed, which has no bearing on the merits of the case. So, the present application is dismissed. Now to come up on 8.1.2011. It is made clear that defendants have already availed numerous opportunities to conclude the evidence on one only last and final adjournment is granted to the defendant only for cross -examination of the tendered witnesses on 8.1.2011. It is made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the defendants at any costs to conclude their evidence."