Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.As. 1217-18/2024, O.As. 11-12/2024 in TEST.CAS.-100/2015

2. These two original appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 21st November, 2023 and 11th July, 2023. In effect, these two orders of the Joint Registrar have rejected the prayer of the Respondent No.5 (a) to examine one Mr. Vivek Singh who is stated to be a forensic expert, to compare the signatures of the testator along with certain documents. The said two orders of the Joint Registrar in effect rejects the prayers of the Respondent No.5 (a) and only permit Respondent No.5 (a) to depose himself as a witness.

3. The challenge by the Respondent is three-fold:

(i) The Respondent wishes to produce certain documents with affidavit in evidence filed by Respondent No.5 (a) as exhibits.

(ii) The said Respondent also wishes to produce an FSL expert-Mr.

Vivek Singh.

(iii) Respondent No.5 (a) also wishes to get the documents filed with the appeals exhibited before the Local Commissioner.

4. The present petition seeks grant of a probate of the Will of late Shri Jaswant Singh Bedi dated 20th October, 2014. He had five children i.e., the Petitioner -son and four daughters who are Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

5. The Appellant/Respondent No.5 in these matters is the son of Mr. Satish Vadhera namely Mr. Preet Pal Singh. The petition itself was filed and notice was issued on 20th November, 2015 and more than eight years have passed.

6. Issues in this matter were framed on 18th December, 2018. The only contesting Defendants as of today are Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as the dispute has been settled with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

7. Insofar the proving of the Will is concerned, the Petitioner’s evidence has concluded on 4th December, 2019.

8. Respondent No.5 had passed away on 20th September, 2020 and she had not filed any list of witnesses. The impleadment of the legal heirs were permitted in January, 2023.

9. The present applications which were rejected by the Joint Registrar were, filed by Respondent No.5 (a) and upon those applications being rejected, appeals have now been filed which are being considered by the Court.

10. Ms. Malhotra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.5 has always contested the matter and has had adequate opportunity to place her case. The issues having been framed so long ago i.e., as of December, 2018, no list of witnesses was filed by Respondent No.5. Even after the conclusion of the evidence of the Petitioner, the affidavit of the Respondent No.5 (a) has been filed only on 20th March, 2023.

11. On behalf of Respondent No.5 (a)- Ld. Counsel submits that Respondent No.5 (a)’s intention is to only ensure comparison of the signatures on the Will and in the other contemporaneous documents. She submits that certain documents have already been attached as exhibits to the affidavits which have been filed. In addition, Respondent No.5 (a) wishes to produce the FSL report to compare the signatures.

12. There is no doubt that the Respondent No.5 (a) failed to file any list of witnesses. The Joint Registrar has permitted only the Respondent No.5 (a) himself to be examined.

13. The case of the Respondent No.5 (a) is that the testator passed away on 3rd November, 2014 just a few days after the Will was executed and he was also in a coma. She submits that an opportunity ought to be granted to Respondent No.5 (a) to place the case on merits.

14. The question at this stage is two fold. One is whether Respondent No.5 (a) can lead the evidence of a forensic expert and secondly whether the documents can be taken on record which are attached with the evidence of Respondent No.5 (a).

15. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, there has been no list of witnesses filed for more than eight years by the Respondent No.5. At this stage after the evidence of the Petitioner is concluded, it would not be permissible for the Respondent No.5(a) to produce