MANJIT KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of motion to the Caveator.

(2.) Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Caveator. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure P-9), whereby the trial Court has granted the permission to respondents-defendants to examine the expert in rebuttal.

(3.) Mr. Amit Kumar Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits, that onus to prove the execution of the Will was on defendants-respondents. With the consent of the parties, the defendants in the first instance, were called upon to lead the evidence in affirmative. The respondents-defendants did not examine any expert but though one of the witness and scribe to the Will had been examined. The petitioner-plaintiff in reply examined Hand Writing Expert at the rebuttal stage. The defendants sought indulgence of the Court by seeking permission of the Court to examine the expert for the purpose of comparison of the signatures of the testator on the Will. Such procedure is not only unknown to the law, but against the mandate of the statutory provision of Order 18, Rule 3 of CPC and as well as ratio decidendi culled out by the two Division Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh and another v. Baldev Singh and ors, 2015 5 RCR(Civ) 625 and Surjit Singh and ors. v. Jagtar Singh and ors., 2007 1 RCR(Civ) 537.