MAGHAR SINGH Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, whereby application filed by defendant-petitioners for leading additional evidence, has been dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondents (Labh Singh, Jagdev Singh and Rajinder Kaur) have filed a suit for declaration that they are owners to the extent of ? ..?th share in the land left by deceased-Gurdial Singh, as mentioned in the head note of the plaint and the Will dated 20.06.1997, alleged to be executed by deceased Gurdial Singh in favour of defendant-petitioners, was forged and fabricated document. After filing of written statement and framing of issues, plaintiff-Labh Singh closed his evidence on 13.12.2003. Defendant-petitioners also concluded their evidence on 05.10.2004. Thereafter, plaintiff-respondents moved an application dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) for permission to lead additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2005. This order was challenged by the defendant-petitioners before this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 4706 of 2005. During the pendency of said petition, plaintiffs examined Dr. Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert in rebuttal. Thereafter, defendant-petitioners filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence by examining Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert. This application was resisted by plaintiff-respondents by taking a plea that defendants have already set up a Will dated 20.06.1997 in their defence and the said Will was got exhibited by them through Buta Singh (DW-2) and Maghar Singh (DW-3). Defendants themselves had closed their evidence on 05.10.2004. Thereafter, plaintiffs led their rebuttal evidence in the form of handwriting and fingerprints expert to prove that the alleged Will was a forged and fabricated document. It was prayed that defendant-petitioners could not be allowed to make an application for leading additional evidence to examine handwriting and fingerprints expert on their behalf as that could have been done by them at the time of leading their evidence.

(3.) Trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the application by referring to the judgment passed by this Court in 2007 (2) CCC 89 (P&H). Hence, this petition.