IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5997-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 01.09.2025 Kesar Singh (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioner Versus Harjeet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. G.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed the present Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial Court, directing the petitioner to lead evidence before the evidence is led by respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs.

2. As per the facts on record, respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P-2) against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and other respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5, seeking a declaration that they are joint owners of the suit property by pleading that the impugned Will alleged to have been executed by Karam Singh in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 is illegal. The plaintiffs had filed said Civil Suit claiming the relief of declaration of ownership on the basis of inheritance, whereas, the petitioner-defendant No.1 had taken a plea that he has inherited the suit property on the basis of a testament and set-up the Will alleged to have been executed by Karam Singh in his favour.

2.2. Initially, the suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant No.1. The issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure P-4 colly.). Thereafter, defendant Nos.3 to 5 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed and issues were reframed vide order dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure P-4 colly). An application under Order XIV Rule 15(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the defendants, as such issue No.2 was recast vide order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-4 colly.) and ultimately, the issues were reframed vide order dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-5).

2.3 The issue No.2 regarding the Will in question was framed which reads as under:-

“2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of setting aside the alleged forged, false and fabricated will dated 13.05.1991 alleged to be executed by Karam Singh in favour of defendant no.1 Kesar Singh? OPP”

2.4 On the basis of an application moved by one of the defendants, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 and directed the petitioner-defendant No.1 to lead evidence at the first instance, i.e. before the respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the facts on record. Respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs have claimed declaration and claimed setting aside the Will in question, as such, the burden of proof is upon them. It is further contended that plaintiffs had already tendered into evidence affidavits of 03 witnesses, though their cross- examination is yet to be conducted. In such circumstances, the trial Court could not have directed the petitioner-defendant No.1 to lead evidence at the first instance.

4. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

6. It is not disputed that the respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs have sought declaration of ownership on the basis of inheritance. Though the plaintiffs have alleged that the Will in question in favour of the petitioners is null and void, but petitioner-defendant No.1 is the propounder of the Will and contesting the claim of the respondent- plaintiffs on the basis of Will in question. It is well settled that Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with the law governing the proof of Will, which reads as under:- “63. Execution of unprivileged wills. –

Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged,