The court emphasized the importance of proving a Will by way of leading secondary evidence and additional evidence, and found that the defendant had been given ample opportunities to do so.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Trial Court vide which the application filed by the petitioner (defendant no.6) along with co-defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 for permission to summon the original register of Hari Ram, Deed Writer, in respect of the Will dated 18.02.2002 for the purpose of comparison by Government Laboratory has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-respondents herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendant no.8 are co-owners in joint possession in equal share of 5 kanals 17 marlas of land and defendant nos.1 to 4 are the co-owners of 5 kanals 17 marlas of land each out of land measuring 29 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khewat no.30, khatauni no.32, khasra no.320 (3-10), 321 (4-12), 688/448 (0-13), khewat no.31, khatauni nos.33 to 35, khasra no.285 (0-12), 324 (7-7), 685/461 (0-11), 674/319 (113), khewat no.33, khatauni no.37, khasra no.684/461 (1-10), khewat no.34, khatauni no.38, khasra no.307 (8-0), 308 (8-0), khewat no.35, khatauni nos.39 and 40, khasra no.633/57 (2-1), 91 (5-18) as entered in jamabandi of the year 1998-99 situated in the area of village Nariala, Teshil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur being the legal heirs of Swaran Singh son of Inder Singh, the predecessor in interest of the parties, who died intestate on 08.12.2002 and the entries in the revenue record on the basis of mutation no.1168 regarding the inheritance of Swaran Singh in favour of defendant nos.5 to 7 on the basis of false, forged and fabricated Will dated 18.02.2002 alleged to have been executed by Swaran Singh in favour of defendant nos.5 to 7 are the result of fraud and misrepresentation and the same is ineffective, inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit land and the entries in the revenue record on the basis of the alleged Will dated 18.02.2002 and the mutation no.1168 are liable to be set aside and corrected so as to show the plaintiffs and defendant no.8 as co-owners in equal shares of 6 kanals 17 marlas of land and defendant nos.1 to 4 to the extent of 5 kanals 17 marlas each in the suit land by deleting the names of defendant nos.5 to 7 from the revenue record with a consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.5 to 7 from alienating the suit land and dispossessing the plaintiff and defendant no.8 from the same.

3. Perusal of the heading of the plaint reveals that Will dated 18.02.2002 was specifically challenged as being forged and fabricated. Both the parties led their evidence. Thereafter, an application dated 29.08.2016 was filed by the defendant-petitioner for permission to prove the Will dated 18.02.2002 by way of secondary evidence, which was allowed. The defendant-petitioner, after the rebuttal evidence had been concluded by the plaintiff-respondents, filed an application for leading additional evidence on 27.04.2018 in order to submit a counter report from an expert. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff-respondents in rebuttal led the evidence of a Handwriting Expert to prove that the Will was forged and fabricated. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2018 and the report of the expert was to be submitted on or before 11.07.2018. The said order was not challenged by the plaintiff-respondents. Thereafter, an application dated 20.04.2019 was filed for permission to summon the original register of Hari Ram, Deed Writer of the year 2002 from where the signatures of Swaran Singh, the executor of the Will, could be compared. The said application was contested and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that in order to compare the signatures of Swaran Singh, summoning of the original register of the Deed Writer would be necessary since the original signatures of the testator of the Will are