C.R. No. 1073 of 2012 Vs. Balbir Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1070060
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-10-2013
AppellantC.R. No. 1073 of 2012
RespondentBalbir Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
c.r.no.1073 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.r.no.1073 of 2012 date of decision :16. 07.2013 pargat singh ....petitioner v/s balbir singh & ors....respondents before : hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.b.d.sharma, advocate for the petitioner. rajan gupta j. (oral) present revision petition is directed against the order passed by civil judge (senior division).amritsar whereby application of the petitioner to examine a hand-writing expert in rebuttal evidence has been dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. he contends that approach of the court below is wholly erroneous. the impugned order is unsustainable. thus, same deserves to be set-aside. heard. it appears that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that will dated 14.07.2004 executed by harbans singh in favour of respondents no.1 & 2 was null & void and revenue entries pursuant thereto were inoperative. plaintiffs also prayed for declaration that they along with defendants no.1 & 2 were owners in joint possession. after notice, defendants filed the written statement. they denied all the averments made by plaintiffs and kumar ajay 2013.07.17 14:19 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document c.r.no.1073 o”2. contended that harbans singh had executed a valid will in their favour. after defendants concluded their evidence, instant application was moved by plaintiffs to examine a hand-writing expert at the stage of rebuttal evidence. plea has been rejected by the court below observing that plaintiffs having led their evidence in affirmative were not entitled to examine hand-writing expert in rebuttal evidence. i find no infirmity with the order passed by the court below. plaintiffs had ample opportunity at the stage when they led their affirmative evidence. there is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction. dismissed. july 16, 2013 (rajan gupta) ajay judge kumar ajay 2013.07.17 14:19 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

C.R.No.1073 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1073 of 2012 Date of decision :

16. 07.2013 Pargat Singh ....Petitioner V/s Balbir Singh & ors....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division).Amritsar whereby application of the petitioner to examine a hand-writing expert in rebuttal evidence has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order.

He contends that approach of the court below is wholly erroneous.

The impugned order is unsustainable.

Thus, same deserves to be set-aside.

Heard.

It appears that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Will dated 14.07.2004 executed by Harbans Singh in favour of respondents No.1 & 2 was null & void and revenue entries pursuant thereto were inoperative.

Plaintiffs also prayed for declaration that they along with defendants No.1 & 2 were owners in joint possession.

After notice, defendants filed the written statement.

They denied all the averments made by plaintiffs and Kumar Ajay 2013.07.17 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No.1073 o”

2. contended that Harbans Singh had executed a valid Will in their favour.

After defendants concluded their evidence, instant application was moved by plaintiffs to examine a hand-writing expert at the stage of rebuttal evidence.

Plea has been rejected by the court below observing that plaintiffs having led their evidence in affirmative were not entitled to examine hand-writing expert in rebuttal evidence.

I find no infirmity with the order passed by the court below.

Plaintiffs had ample opportunity at the stage when they led their affirmative evidence.

There is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

July 16, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Kumar Ajay 2013.07.17 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document