BHARTI SHARMA. Vs. NARESH KUMAR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision petition filed under S.115 CPC lays challenge to order dtd. 4/8/2022 passed by learned senior sub judge, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 118-112-I- XVI(Annexure P-3), whereby an application having been fled by the respondents/defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants') under S. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act read with S.151 CPC, seeking therein permission to prove Will dtd. 29/5/2014, by leading secondary evidence, came to be allowed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter, 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration that they are owner-in-possession qua share of deceased Surender Kumar in the property described in the plaint. Aforesaid plea came to be made on the basis that the suit property is joint Hindu family coparcenery ancestral property and alleged Will executed by late Surender Kumar is bad in law. Aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be opposed on behalf of the defendants on the ground that they are owner-in-possession of the suit land on the basis of Will dtd. 29/5/2014, executed by late Surender Kumar in their favour.

(3.) Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the defendants came to be resisted by the plaintiffs, who in their reply denied the factum with regard to execution of Will, if any, by late Surender Kumar. They specifically denied the averment made on behalf of the defendants, that they had handed over the original of the Will to their counsel, but he lost the same.