IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (125 Date of Decision:-26.02.2026 PANKAJ BANSAL … Petitioner Versus SHIVANI GUPTA ALIAS SWEETY AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to assail the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the learned Court has proceeded to review its earlier order dated

21.09.2022 (Annexure P-2).

2. Briefly stated, the respondent–plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration with respect to the inheritance of late Dharam Pal Bansal. The petitioner–defendant, in defence, propounded a Will dated 14.02.2016. Upon framing of issues, the parties led evidence. The respondent–plaintiff, in affirmative evidence, moved an application for examination of a Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for comparison of the disputed signatures of the testator on the Will with his admitted signatures appearing on a divorce petition and other documents; the said application was allowed.

2.1. Subsequently, the respondent–plaintiff filed another application seeking directions to the petitioner–defendant to produce certain public documents, including the passport containing the signatures of Dharam Pal and specimen signatures from bank records for the period “1983 to 2016”, for purposes of comparison. The application was contested and dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2022 on the ground that the defendants could not be compelled to produce documents at the instance of the plaintiff.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent–plaintiff preferred a review application, which, though contested, was ultimately not pressed in view of a statement made before the Court reserving liberty to raise the issue at the rebuttal stage, should the defendant produce any such documents in evidence. The review application was accordingly disposed of as not pressed vide order dated 09.01.2023.

4. Thereafter, the respondent–plaintiff examined her Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and closed her affirmative evidence. The petitioner–defendant, in turn, examined his own expert to substantiate the genuineness of the testator’s signatures and closed the defence evidence. At the stage of final arguments, the respondent–plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here- in-after to be referred as “CPC”), seeking appropriate orders in terms of the liberty purportedly reserved under order dated 09.01.2023, with a prayer to revive and press the earlier review at the rebuttal stage.

5. Upon notice, the petitioner–defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed reply contesting the maintainability as well as the merits of the application, asserting that no ground whatsoever was made out for review of the order dated 21.09.2022. Vide the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge allowed the application on the premise that the respondent–plaintiff possessed an inherent right to lead evidence in rebuttal and that no prejudice would ensue to the petitioner–defendant if an opportunity were afforded to examine a Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for comparison of the disputed signatures on the Will. The petitioner thereafter preferred a review application against the said order; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2026, the learned Court holding that no error apparent on the face of the record had been demonstrated.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) and 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-11), the present revision petition has been instituted.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have meticulously perused the paper-book.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that t