By way of this revision filed under Ar�cle 227 of the Cons�tu�on of India, pe��oners assail the order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure P.5) passed by learned Addi�onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, whereby applica�on for produc�on of addi�onal evidence has been dismissed. The pe��oners are defendants before the trial Court. Defendants- pe��oners are defending the case on the basis of a registered Will No.621 dated 07.03.2014. The issue regarding the Will was framed as stated by learned counsel. The defendants- pe��oners closed the oral evidence on 04.11.2024. However, later on the defendants-pe��oners moved an applica�on for addi�onal evidence sta�ng therein that both the a6es�ng witnesses to the Will had expired and, therefore, they wanted to examine two witnesses i.e. Darshan Kumar, Ex Sub Registrar, of Mansa so as to prove the Will; and the concerned Clerk from the Office of Sub Registrar Mansa so as to bring the original record rela�ng to the Will in ques�on. That applica�on has been rejected by the trial Court by way of the impugned order by observing that defendants- pe��oners had already been granted ten opportuni�es to lead their evidence and that they themselves had closed their oral evidence. 2. Assailing the afore-said order, it is contended by learned counsel that since the a6es�ng witnesses to the Will have already died, therefore, it was necessary to examine the officials of the Sub Registrar Office so as to prove the Will. It is also contended that oral evidence was closed by learned counsel for the pe��onersdefendants inadvertently.
