SAROJ Vs. CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by one defendant aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by her under section 151 CPC. She was seeking permission to lead additional evidence.

(2.) We may straightway proceed to deal with brevity, the case presented before the Court. A suit was filed in May 2006. Issues were framed in May 2007. The plaintiff closed its evidence and thereafter, six adjournments were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence. Their evidence was closed by Court order on 15.02.2010. These facts were disclosed by the counsel representing the petitioner.

(3.) The suit had been filed by the brothers who had laid challenge to the mutation that was entered with respect to the estate of their father. The defendants impleaded were the mother, sisters and other legal heirs. Defendant nos.2 to 5 filed a separate written statement pleading that the Will was forged. Defendant no.2 claimed that she was a 'Parda Nasheen' lady and was residing at village Gochhi in district Jhajjar and in the record her residence was shown to be village Khungai and her lawyer sent a message through a registered letter at that village which was not received by her and she contacted her lawyer in July 2010 and she came to know about status of the case and that her evidence was closed. It was claimed that she came to know that her father Chandgi Ram had filed a suit in 1972 and the plaint, Vakalatnama and the replication of that suit had been thumb marked by the father and a Fingerprint Expert was hired by them who has compared the thumb impressions with the thumb impressions on the disputed Will and they were not of the same person and to decide the controversy it was necessary to examine the Expert.