IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.03.2026 Smt. Pushpa through her legal representatives ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Bhageshwari alias Renu ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by defendant No.1 through her LRs i.e. defendants No. 2 to 4 for setting aside the order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar; whereby application filed by the petitioner for framing of additional issue, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

06.05.2016: Plaintiff/respondent had filed Civil Suit No. 1048 of 2016 (Annexure P-1) for separate possession by way of partition.

17.08.2016: Petitioner/defendant No.1 had filed written statement (Annexure P-2) to the above said suit.

Nil: Plaintiff had filed replication dated nil (Annexure P-3).

31.07.2023: Vide the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure P-4), suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar holding the plaintiff entitled for relief of separate possession of suit property to the extent of 1/5th share; and defendants No.1 to 4 are also held entitled to 1/5th share each.

11.09.2023: Against the same, petitioner had filed Civil Appeal dated

11.09.2023 (Annexure P-5).

30.10.2023: It is before the First Appellate Court that the petitioner moved the present application dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) for framing additional issue to the effect that: “Whether Sh. Kishan Chand had executed a legal Will in favour of the petitioner.”

Nil: Plaintiff had filed reply dated nil (Annexure P-7) to the application of the petitioner for framing additional issue.

28.10.2025: Vide the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-8), the said application of the petitioner has been declined.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the learned First Appellate Court was in error in dismissing the application of the petitioner as it failed to appreciate that in paras 5 and 6 of the replication (Annexure P-3), respondent took the following plea: -

“5. That the contents of Para no. 5 of the written statement are incorrect, wrong, therefore denied and that of suit are correct, therefore re-iterated here. It is absolutely wrong that the defendants are only legal heirs of Kishan Lal and it is also wrong that the defendants inherited the estate of Kishan Lal on the basis of will dated 29-04-1998, the said will is a forged and fabricated document having no force of law.

6. That the contents of Para no. 6 are incorrect, wrong, therefore denied and that of suit are correct, therefore re-

iterated here. It is absolutely wrong that the defendants are only legal heirs of Kishan Lal and it is also wrong that the defendants inherited the estate of Kishan Lal on the basis of will dated 29-04-1998, the said will is a forged and fabricated document having no force of law.”

4. Learned counsel contends that in view of the above said plea taken by the respondents to the effect that the Will was forged and fabricated, it was incumbent upon learned Trial Court to frame necessary issue in respect of genuineness of the Will. However, no such issue was framed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that as the respondents had raised plea that the Will was forged and fabricated, onus was upon the respondents to prove their said contention. However, as proper issue was not framed in the matter, burden of proving genuineness of the Will has shifted upon the petitioners. Therefore, prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. However, these facts are not being taken into account by the learned First Appellate Court while passing the impugned order.

5. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the learned counsel representing the petitioners to have made proper representation be