JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja J. - The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application filed at the instance of petitioner-plaintiff, seeking permission to take photographs of Will in question dated 26.03.1985 for the purposes of examining handwriting expert, has been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming 2/3rd share out of the total suit land owned by deceased Amarjit Singh. The petitioner-plaintiff also questioned the validity of Will dated 26.03.1985, purportedly executed by deceased-Amarjit Singh in favour of respondents No.1 to 5, stating it to be a forged and fabricated document. On the other hand, the respondents-defendants based their claim upon Will dated 26.03.1985, regarding the estate of deceased-Amarjit Singh.

3. Issues framed in the suit on 20.09.2012 are reproduced hereunder for reference:-

'1. Whether land in dispute in the hands of Amarjit Singh was Joint Hindu Family ancestral property? If so its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the alienation made by defendant Nos.1 to 5 during pendency of Regular Civil Appeal between the parties in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court are illegal, null and void? OPP.

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of land as prayed for? OPP.

6. Whether late Amarjit Singh executed legal and valid Will dated 26.03.1985 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 OPD.

7. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

8. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

9. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

10. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

11. Relief."

4. The petitioner-plaintiff closed her evidence on 24.08.2015, whereas, the respondents-defendants closed their evidence on 11.05.2018. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of rebuttal evidence as well as for final arguments. During said period, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to allow a handwriting expert so as to inspect the file and take photograph of the alleged Will dated 26.03.1985 and to submit a report thereupon as regards the genuineness thereof. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the respondents on 05.09.2018. Vide order dated 05.12.2018, the prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff came to be declined. It is the said order which has been impugned in the present revision petition.

5. It has been contended on behalf of learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as per issue No.6, the onus to prove execution of the Will dated 26.03.1985 was upon the defendant/ respondent and as such, the requirement to rebut the same arose only once, the respondents concluded their entire evidence in affirmative as regards its proof and the original Will was produced on record on 15.01.2016 by DW-1, namely, Parveen Mahal. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court committed an error of law while having ignored explanation 'I' to Sub Rule 2 to Rule 18 which came to be inserted by way of Punjab High Court Amendment, carried out on 01.11.1976 and reads as under:-

'In Order XVIII, in rule 2, at the end, insert the following Explanation, namely:-

'Explanation- Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing to direct any party to examine any witness at any stage."

6. Referring to explanation 'I', learned Senior counsel submits that the Court was granted power to permit any party to examine any witness at any stage either of its own accord or an application made by the party, however, subject to reasons to be recorded in writing.

7. Learned counsel also submits that con