CIVIL REVISION NO.3987 OF 2006 :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 01 , 2008

Balbir Singh Wasu

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Lakhbir Singh Wasu (died) through his L.Rs and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. J. S. Wasu, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Puneet Jindal &

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocates,

for the respondents.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 9.6.2006

passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, allowing certain

documents to be exhibited and admitted in evidence. The objection

of the petitioner is that these documents have been admitted and

exhibited without these having been formally proved and, thus, the

impugned order is alleged to be against the provisions of the Indian

Evidence Act.

The petitioner and the respondents are closely related to

CIVIL REVISION NO.3987 OF 2006 :{ 2 }:

each other. They are bitterly fighting over the property left by Harnam

Singh Wasu, a senior counsel of this Court. The dispute relates to

the wills dated 5.7.1992 and 8.5.1988 allegedly executed by late

Harnam Singh Wasu. The petitioner is the eldest surviving son of the

testator and is contesting the wills which were set up by late Lakhbir

Singh Wasu who died during the pendency of the suit and is now

represented by his L.Rs, mainly his wife, Smt.Malvinder Kaur. The

defendants while giving their evidence sought to exhibit various

documents on record including these two wills. The wills were

marked as mark A and B respectively. The other documents were

marked from Ex.P1 to Ex.P38. The cross-examination of the

witnesses is yet to take place. The endorsement on these documents

has been made without giving any chance to the petitioner to raise

objection. An application for de-exhibiting certain documents was

thereafter filed and the prayer made in the application was pressed in

the light of law laid down in the case of Girdhari Lal Vs. Ritesh

Mahajan and another, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 349. This application

was taken up for hearing on 23.2.2006 and the Trial Court decided to

defer the decision on the objection of the petitioner till the time of

final arguments. The petitioner impugned this order by filing Civil

Revision No.1250 of 2006, which was finally allowed by this Court on

8.5.2006. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

“...........In view of the discussion held above, it is held that

the trial court should decide the objection regarding the

admissibility and mode of proof of documents referred to

in the affidavits as the court cannot postpone it for being

CIVIL REVISION NO.3987 OF 2006 :{ 3 }:

decided at the time of final arguments.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.2.2009 is set-

aside and the learned trial court is directed to decide the

admissibility and mode of proof of the documents sought

to be exhibited in the affidavits containing examination in

chief of the witnesses of the defendants.”

Thereupon, the matter was again taken up by the Trial

Court and considering the objections raised by the petitioner and

reply thereto, the Court has held certain documents to be rightly

admitted in evidence and has accordingly marked them exhibits.

Certain documents, however, have been held to be not proved and

accordingly held not to be admissible in evidence. The petitioner has

now impugned the said order through the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised

grievance in regard to exhibits P5, P6, P13, P14, P29, P37 and

P38. His subm