J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by ADJ-02, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Probate Petition No. 15971/2016, titled as Om Prakash Kashyap v. State, whereby the affidavit dated 11.12.2018 filed by Petitioner witness-2 (‘PW-2’) for correction of his address in his evidence has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

1.1. The Petitioner herein filed the probate petition no. 58/2013, seeking probate of the Will dated 18.03.2013 in favour of the Petitioner bequeathing the property bearing flat no. 162, Block No. C4F, Janakpuri, New Delhi (‘Suit Property’).

1.2. The attesting witness of the said Will dated 18.03.2013 i.e., Sh. Jatinder Singh was examined by the Petitioner herein as PW-2. The said witness was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1849/2023 Page 1 of 4 examined and cross-examined on 21.03.2017 and discharged. The said witness tendered an evidence affidavit also dated 21.03.2017.

1.3. The Respondent thereafter placed on record documents which evidenced that the details of the address disclosed by PW-2 in his evidence was incorrect.

1.4. Therefore, the said witness thereafter on 11.12.2018 filed an affidavit before the Trial Court seeking correction of his address, which was recorded in his evidence affidavit as well as in the statement recorded on 21.03.2017 at the time of tendering of the said application/affidavit.

1.5. The issue of correction of the address has been pursued by the Petitioner through his counsel on behalf of PW-2.

1.6. The Trial Court after perusing the record has rejected the request of the witness and passed the impugned order, operative portion of which reads as under:-

“15. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the witness/PW- 2 has mentioned his address firstly in his affidavit which is tendered in evidence on 21.03.2017 and thereafter while tendering his affidavit, he has again mentioned the same address before the court and thereafter during cross- examination conducted by Id. Counsel for respondent no. 2 to 5, two specific questions were put to the witness about his address and he replied the same and did not state that inadvertently wrong address has been mentioned in his affidavit and in his deposition. The statement of the witness Sh. Jitender Singh/PW-2 was recorded on 21.03.2017 and the affidavit for making correction in his address has been filed on 11.12.2018 and the said affidavit is attested by the Id. Counsel for the petitioner. It is prima facie appearing from the record of the case that the 2dderss of the witness is a contentious issue between the parties and witness PW-2 himself has disclosed his address in his affidavit as well as to the court while tendering the said affidavit in evidence. Hence, there is no typographical error in recording the address of witness/PW-2 at the time of his examination in the court. Therefore, in view of the above observations, without expressing anything on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1849/2023 Page 2 of 4 merit, the submissions of Id. Counsel for the petitioner to correct the address of PW-2 in his evidence is declined.”

(Emphasis supplied)

1.7. The Trial Court has in the above-said order after considering the record and averments made by the PW-2 in his affidavit dated 11.12.2018 seeking correction of his address held that the address of witness as recorded in the evidence recorded on 21.03.2017 does not amount to a clerical error, especially since the witness was specifically cross-examined on the aspect of the address. However, the Trial Court has further clarified that the request for correction has been dismissed without making any observation on the merits of the case of the Petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that as is evident from the record, in the address recorded in evidence of PW-2, the name of the colony has been wrongly recorded as ‘New Krishna