IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No.189 of 2025

Date of Decision : 12.12.2025

Krishna Devi

…… Petitioner

Versus

Pari Dutt and another

……Respondents

Coram: t

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting u ?1

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv

Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Nemo.

Bipin Ch ander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned

order dated 15.11.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Sui it No.309 of 2019, titled Krishna Devi vs. Pari Dutt, whereby an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Civil Procedure Code for bringing on record the original Will dated 30.03.1989 and original gift deed dated 21.08.1989 filed by the present

respondents/defendants, has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, in the case at hand, is the daughter of one Shri Paingu. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner/plaintiff (Paingu) had executed a Gift and a Will in favour of the present

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

respondents/defendants. In the aforesaid backdrop, a suit seeking declaration with respect to the Will and the Gift so executed in Pfavour of the respondents along-with other reliefs had been filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff.

4. In the written statement filed by the present respondents/ defendants had tried to justify the validity of the Will and Gift made in their favour by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff (Paingu).

5. The issues, in the caste at hand, were framed. The evidence of the present petitioner/plaintiff stands concluded. Once the matter was listed for recording of the evidence of the defendants an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code for production of the original Will dated 30.03.1989 and Gift Deed dated 21.08.1989 made in favour of present respondents/defendants had been filed.

6. In the application, it had been averred that inadvertently the documents could not be filed. Further, it was averred that the entire case ipertains to the aforesaid two documents, hence, it was prayed that in the interest of justice, the respondents/defendants be permitted to place on record the aforesaid documents as witnesses to the said documents would be produced by the respondents/defendants to prove the same and the petitioner/plaintiff shall get due opportunity to cross-examine and rebut the said documentary evidence.

7. In the reply to the application, it has been averred by the present petitioner/plaintiff that deliberately these documents were not filed prior to the framing of issues. If they are permitted to be filed, at this stage, then grave prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff as no opportunity to controvert the same would be available to the petitioner/plaintiff. Further in the reply on merit, it has been avePrred that the documents now sought to be placed on record are forge and fictions.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Trial Court subject to payment of costs allowed the placing on record the documents. The costs were imposed on account of lack of diligence shown by the present respondents/

defendants in placing on record the documents at an appropriate stage.

9. Other than the aforestaid, the Trial Court was of the view that the documents sought to be placed on record are required to be proved. Due opportunity would be given to the petitioner/plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses so produced by the present respondents for proving the two documents, hence, no prejudice shall be caused to the present petitioner/plaintiff by belated production of the documents in the present case. Thereafter, the matter has been now posted for recording of evidence of the respondents/defendants.

i10. In a trial, the search is for the truth. In the case at hand, the entire bone of contention is the Will and the Gif