KARANVIR SINGH AUJLA Vs. HARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this peon filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, peoner prays for se,ng aside order dtd. 16/9/2024 (Annexure P.27) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the objecons dtd. 13/9/2024 (Annexure P.25) filed by the respondents objecng to the examinaon of the peoner- plainff as PW6, has been allowed. Challenge is further given to the order dtd. 17/9/2024 (Annexure P.29), whereby learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the plainffs.

(2.) Inially, dispute started regarding the estate of Jagdarshan Singh, who on his death on 22/12/1998, le; behind his widow Smt. Harinder Kaur and two children, namely, Jasnesh Kaur and son Rajbir. Jasnesh Kaur (plainff - performa respondent N: 4 herein), i.e. daughter of Jagdarshan Singh filed Civil Suit No.13179 of 2023 claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property on the basis of natural succession, against her mother Harinder Kaur [defendant N: 1 - respondent N: 1 herein (since deceased)] and brother Rajbir [defendant N: 2 - respondent N: 2 herein (since deceased)]. She further challenged Will dtd. 5/11/1990 purported to have been executed by Jagdarshan Singh and registered on 27/12/2010, in favour of Harinder Kaur and Rajbir.

(3.) Assailing the afore-said orders, it is contended by learned counsel for the peoner -plainff that when a party is to examine himself as a witness, it is not required to menon his name in the list of witnesses and that there was no jusfiable reason to reject his affidavit or not to allow him to appear as his own witness. Learned counsel refers to Order 16 and Rule 1 and Rule 1A CPC and relies upon Lalitha J. Rai Vs. Aithappa Rai, 1996(1) RRR 241; M/s Preet Cold Storage and Ice Factory, Khamano Mandi, Ludhiana and others Vs. M/s United Commercial Bank, Sangol Ludhiana and another, 1989 (1) PLR 180; Mandir Shri Hanuman Mur0 and another Vs. Collector Mahoday Da0a and another , 2016 (1) MPLJ 72; and Mange Ram Vs. Brij Mohan and others, 1983 (3) SCR 525.