URMILA @ PINKI Vs. GULSHAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Civil Revision No.4711 of 2017, petitioner has challenged order dated 18.05.2017, passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rohtak, dismissing application for additional evidence.

(2.) Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiff no.1 claims that she has came to know that her father Hira Lal had executed two Wills dated 03.05.2002 and 27.08.2003. It was further asserted that Will dated 03.05.2002 is in possession of defendant no.3, whereas Will dated 27.08.2003 is in possession of defendant no.1. Plaintiff No.1 wants to produce both the wills by way of additional evidence. A prayer was made for producing the above stated Wills and to examine scribe and attesting witnesses of the said Wills in additional evidence.

(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, dismissed the application with following observations:-