$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 220/2018 & I.A. 62/2026 SANGEETA MULWANI & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. F.K. Jha, Mr. Gaurav Jha and Ms.

Shalini Jha, Advs.

M: 9310460255 versus KAVITA KESWANI .....Defendant Through: Mr. D. Moitra, Adv.

M: 9810083029 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026 I.A. 62/2026

1. The present application has been filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on behalf of the plaintiffs for recalling of PW-5/Ramesh Madan for correction of a technical error.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the matter is pending before the learned Local Commissioner (“LC”) for recording of the plaintiffs’ evidence, and PW-5 was examined on 10^th December, 2025 before the learned Local Commissioner.

3. He further submits that PW-5 is the attesting witness of the Will dated 19^th November, 2005, executed by the late father of the parties, and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit, as the attesting witness. He submits that specific points of PW-5’s signature as the attesting witness on the Will dated 19^th November, 2005, could not be marked due to inadvertence at the time of recording of his evidence.

4. Thus, the present application has been filed for recalling PW- 5/Ramesh Madan, only for the purpose of marking the signatures of the said witness.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the said Will is only a photocopy, and not the original Will. Further, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, and in particular, upon paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment, to submit that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, is not to be exercised to fill up the omissions in the evidence of the witness who has alreadybeen examined.

6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that they do not wish to re-examine PW-5, and the limited purpose for recalling the said witness is for the purpose of marking the signatures of the said witness on the Will in question, as the attesting witness.

7. Accordingly, PW-5 is allowed to be recalled for the aforesaid specific purpose.

8. Let steps be taken for recalling PW-5, who shall appear before the learned LC on the date alreadyfixed, i.e., 03^rd March, 2026 at 02:00 PM.

9. Copy of this order shall be brought to the notice of the learned LC, who shall take appropriate steps in that regard.

10. As regards the objection raised by the defendant that the Will in question is a photocopy, the objection with regard thereto, shall be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case.

11. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is accordingly, disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J FEBRUARY 19, 2026/KR