This judgment addresses a revision petition challenging an order that allowed respondents to amend their written statement regarding a dispute over a Will. The High Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the revision.
Death and expense of the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
C.R. No. 2859 of 2009 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 2859 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.5.2009
Tara Singh and another
... .Petitioners
Versus
Ranbir Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAJESH BINDAL J
The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by learned Court below on January 24, 2009 whereby the application for amendment of written statement filed by respondents/defendants was allowed.
Briefly the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of their shares. The stand of the respondents/defendants in the written statement earlier filed was that the Will which is sought to be projected by petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 was infact a fabricated document as he has misused a blank signed paper of deceased Karam Singh to fabricate the Will. It was claimed in the application that in the written statement already filed due to typographical error it was mentioned that petitioner No.1 had used a blank signed paper whereas infact deceased Karam Singh used to thumb mark and amendment was sought to the extent that infact blank thumb marked paper of deceased Karam Singh was used by petitioner No.1 to fabricate the document. The amendment to that extent was allowed vide impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that perusal of the Will itself shows that it did not carry any thumb mark . Once that was so the object of filing the application for amendment at this stage when the suit was fixed for defendant's evidence was just with a view to delay the process as the facts stated in the application were not even corroborated with the documents on record.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of the Will which shows that the same carries only signatures and no thumb mark. The amendment was sought by respondents/defendants to claim that Karam Singh used to put his thumb mark and not sign the documents and infact a blank thumb mark document was
2
C.R. No. 2859 of 2009 (O&M)
misused by petitioner No.1. The facts stated by the respondents in the application for amendment and the amendment sought were not corroborated from the Will on record. This aspect of the matter was required to be considered by the Court below. However, still this aspect of the matter will now be considered by learned Court below at the time of final arguments of the suit as to whether the evidence led by the parties is in terms of the pleadings or not.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 26.5.2009 JUDGE
Reema
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the order allowing amendment of written statement regarding the mode of execution of a Will.
Whether the factual inconsistency between the Will and the amendment application is a ground for interference at this stage.
Tara Singh and another
Ranbir Singh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
