IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 can be entertained by Punjab and Haryana High Court even without framing a substantial question of law.
(2) First appeal – First Appellate Court, while setting aside Judgment and decree of trial court, is required to meet reasoning given by trial court in rejecting Will, which in present case has not been done by First Appellate Court.
(3) Genuineness of Will – Merely because attesting witnesses had no enmity towards plaintiff, it cannot dispel suspicious circumstances surrounded around Will.

The petitioner has preferred this Review Petition seeking review of the Order dated 13.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014 wherein the present petitioner was the respondent. In the Order under review, the Civil Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 27.11.2007 in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1985 was set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sangrur, on 06.06.1985 in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1983 has been restored.

2. In the judgment under review, this Court held that the judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹[‘CPC’] on the ground that in exercise of such power, the High Court could not have reappreciated the entire evidence on record to unsettle the finding of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court, by substituting its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court.

3. Basing the judgment rendered in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 157, this Court directed that the review petition be listed before the open Court for hearing and subsequently on 13. 08.2019 notices were issued to the opposite parties, at the same time, directing the parties to maintain status quo.

4. In substance, the main ground for review of the judgment is that the Constitution Bench of this Court in Pankajakshi (supra) have uphold the validity of Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918³[‘Punjab Act’], overruling this Court’s earlier judgment in case of Kulwant Kaur & Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Maan (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 262 holding that since Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 has no application to Section 41 of the Punjab Act, therefore, Section 41 of the Punjab Act would necessarily continue as a law in force and the second appeal before the High Court has to be heard within the parameters of Section 41 of the Punjab Act, and not under Section 100 CPC.

5. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would also refer to the subsequent judgments of this Court in Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors., (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Sing (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors., (2023) SCC Online SC 875 wherein this Court relying upon Pankajakshi (supra) held that the scope of interference within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court would be the same as under Section 100 of CPC as it existed prior to the 1976 amendment. The provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Act and of Section 100 CPC, before its amendment in 1976, are in pari materia. Therefore, the questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction in second appeal is circumscribed by provision of Section 41 of the Punjab Act.

6. Shri Patwalia would submit that this Court has set aside the Judgment of High Court terming it as beyond the power under Section 100 CPC which is not legally correct, in view of the law laid down in Pankajakshi (supra). It is further argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled to succeed to the property by way of natural succession and the finding of the High Court that the Will relied upon by the respondents has not been proved as it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances ought not to have been interfered by this Court. It is argued that a finding of fact erroneously or perversely recorded by the First Appellate Court can always be interfered by the High Court. Hence, there is no infirmity in the Judgment rendered by the High Court and the same ought not to have been interfered by this Court while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014 on an erroneous ground that the High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction and power under Section 100 CPC as it stands of the 1976 amendment.

7. Shri