Dismissed

Soma Singh and Ors. v. Mandeep Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jun 2016CR/3922/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the existence of a Will by secondary evidence, dismissing the revision petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of application under Section 65 allowed; Revision petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application.

Soma Singh and Ors. Vs Mandeep Kaur and… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CR No.3922 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.3922 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:02.06.2016

¶5

Soma Singh and others ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mandeep Kaur and others ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶10

To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present:Mr. S.S.Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners after realizing the fact that an application seeking leave of the trial Court for proving the Will dated 13.07.1996 by way of secondary evidence, was pre-mature as mutation bearing No.2773 of the property concerned was effected on the basis of the original Will in the presence of the respondent-plaintiffs, he submits that perhaps his clients were ill advised, thus, at this stage, seeks withdrawal of the present revision petition with liberty to move an application provided that finding rendered in the impugned order may not be treated as impediment.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and appraised the paper book and of the view that petitioner-defendants ought to have

¶15

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.06.13 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

CR No.3922 of 2016 (O&M) {2}

¶17

taken steps to show the existing proof of the Will in order to enable the Court to form an opinion by leading secondary evidence as has been projected with regard to existence of the Will during the proceedings, therefore, prayer made by Mr. Walia, is genuine and fair. Accordingly, application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one, in case, certain corroborative and other evidence has been led to show the existence of the Will and the trial Court shall decide the application uninfluenced with the findings rendered in the impugned order.

¶18

In view of the aforementioned, revision petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.

¶19

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶20

June 02, 2016 savita

¶21

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.06.13 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Soma Singh and Ors. v. Mandeep Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soma Singh and Ors. v. Mandeep Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Talwar Vs Payal

Jagbir Singh Vs Mandeep Kaur

Sanjeev Kalyan Vs Jai Ram and Ors.

Mepl Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. (Mmpl) Vs Shailender Nath Gupta

M/S Shankar Rice Mills and Anr. Vs Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation Ltd.

National Highways Authority of India Vs State of Punjab & Ors.