SATNAM SINGH Vs. HARPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order, being assailed, dated 27.01.2017, rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Patiala, the trial Court has granted opportunity to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to appear for further cross-examination.

(2.) In a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, he has prayed for a declaration that he is owner to the extent of ⅕th share in the estate of his father namely Maghar Singh, and, has also assailed the Will dated 207.2004, which is alleged to have executed by the deceased in favour of the petitioner (defendant No.1) and his brother Kesar Singh (defendant No.2). No doubt, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had already led his evidence, and, thereafter, even the defendants have also closed their evidence. But owing to inadvertence and an accidental omission, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 closed his evidence, though, he was only partly cross-examined. Thus, an application was moved for recalling the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Harpal Singh, for further cross examination.

(3.) And, on an analysis of the matter and the material on record, learned trial Court reached a conclusion that in the event, the opportunity prayed for, is not granted, that would result in injustice to the plaintiff :