270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 VINAY SHARMA AND ORS .... Petitioners VERSUS RISHI KISHAN AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh whereby an application filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed and the witnesses PW4 and PW2 have been allowed to be recalled and re-examined.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is owner in possession of 50% share in House No.3063, Sector-37D, Chandigarh on the basis of the registered Will dated 24.08.1999 as also for permanent injunction and recovery of a sum of ₹1,52,000 received as rent by defendants No.2 and 3 (petitioners No.1 and 2 herein) from the tenants on the top floor and also for mandatory injunction seeking possession of the house. In para No.5 of the plaint, it was averred that Smt. Kaushalaya Devi executed a registered Will dated 24.08.1999 bequeathing her property in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 and defendant No.2 (petitioner No.1 herein). Copies of the death certificate of Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and the Will dated 24.08.1999 were annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-4 with the plaint. It is apt to note that in the entire plaint there was not a word regarding the Will having been lost or being in possession of any other person. Written statement was filed by defendants No.2 and 3 (petitioners No.1 and 2 herein) wherein the execution of the Will was denied on the ground that there was already a family settlement dated 30.08.1996. Issues were framed on 26.08.2015 and issue No.1 reads as ‘Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 50% share in H.No.3063, Sector-37D, Chandigarh on the basis of duly registered Will dated 24.08.1999? OPP’. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 closed his evidence on 06.04.2017 and defendant No.5 (petitioner No.3) herein closed the evidence on 11.07.2018. It is to be noted that no application was ever moved by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 under Order XI Rule 12 CPC for production of any document alleged to be in possession of the defendants in the suit. On 16.08.2018 the arguments were partly heard in the matter and thereafter on various dates the matter was listed for arguments. On some dates further arguments were addressed and on some dates no arguments were addressed. On 10.09.2018 the case was transferred and taken up by the Court. Thereafter the matter was fixed for arguments on various dates. On 09.10.2018 for the first time the counsel for the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 had pointed out that an application was filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 on 17.01.2018 seeking directions to defendant No.3 (petitioner No.2 herein) to produce the original Will. It is stated that the said application was not decided till date. The case was thereafter adjourned for arguments on the application to 12.10.2018. On 12.10.2018 the application was disposed off holding that defendant No.3 (petitioner No.2 herein) had taken a categoric stand that the Will was not in his possession and as such he cannot be directed to produce any such Will on the record. Subsequently, on 17.10.2018 the present application was filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2019. Hence, the present revision petition by defendants No.2 to 5 (petitioners herein).

3. Learned counsel for defendants No.2 to 5 (petitioners herein) would conte