Additional evidence to prove a will was denied due to failure to present it timely in relation to framed issues.

JUDGMENT :

Auka Sarin, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar whereby an application filed by the petitioners (defendants No. 5 and 6) for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

2. Brief facts may be noticed. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration making the following prayers :

'Suit for declaration to this effect that the plaintiff is owner in joint possession over the property bearing Plot No.51 situated at Sadhu Singh Colony, Village Kingra, Tehsil & District Jalandhar, out of which 3 Marlas measuring 18 Ft. x 56 Ft. 6 Inch bounded as:-

East: Road

West: Road

North: Plot No.50

South: Remaining portion of plot No.51.

Shown as red in the site plan attached bearing Hadbast No.301, Khewat Khatauni No.409/445, 410/446, Khasra No.787/2, 788, 819/1, 819/4, 820/1, 820/4, 822/1, 822/4, 823/2, 825/1, 1487/826/2, 790/1, 791/1, 820/3 and one house bearing No.45, Ward No.6, Naya Gaon, District Shatarpur, Madhya Pradesh.

AND

The alleged sale deed executed by defendant No.l in favour of defendant No.5 dated 18.07.2016 is null and void inoperative without consideration and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside along with the mutation sanctioned on the strength of the above said sale deed.

AND

The mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of defendant No.l of inheritance Chikori Ram deceased is null and void inoperative on the back of the plaintiff and for declaration that the alleged Will alleged to be executed by Chikori Ram deceased in favour of defendant No. 1.

AND

For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating and creating charge over the property.

AND

Suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed alleged to be executed by defendant No.l in favour of defendant No.6 is null and void, inoperative without completion and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the mutation sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff is liable to be set aside.'

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 01.02.2019 :

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

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

7. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD

8. Relief'

Yet again vide order dated 06.07.2022 certain additional issues were framed, which are as under :

' 1. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous ? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

4. Whether the present plaint is not filed in accordance with amended CPC ? OPD

5. Whether the site plan attached is not as per actual and factual position existing at the spot ? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD'

After the conclusion of the evidence, an application was filed by plaintiffrespondent No.l for framing of additional issues. Reply was filed to the said application and the following additional issues were framed vide order dated 21.10.2024 :

'1-A Whether the plaint