Joginder Singh and Another Vs Hari Singh and Others

The present application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by thi s Court in CR-2193-2019 and connecte d matter, whereby both the Civi l Revision Petitions preferred by the re v iew-applicant/petitioner came t o be dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the r eview-applicant has sought review o f the aforesaid order primarily o n the ground that the learned Trial Co u rt had wrongly placed the onu s upon the plaintiffs to prove that the W ill dated 03.05.2000 was forg e d and fabricated, despite the fact tha t the said Will had been propounded by defendant No.1/res p ondent No.1. It is further co n tended that the application

¶15

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 2

¶17

seeking e xamination of Handwriting E x pert was wrongly dismissed and that a n additional issue regarding e x ecution of the Will ought to have bee n framed by the learned Trial C ourt. Reliance has also been placed u p on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275 to contend that additiona l evidence can be permitted in e x ercise of inherent powers of the Cour t even at a later stage if the s a me is necessary for proper adjudicat i on of the matter.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the review-applicant and have car e fully perused the review appl i cation as well as the order sought to be reviewed.

¶19

At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the scope of review j u risdiction is extremely limited. A review petition cannot be treated a s an appeal in disguise. Unless t here is an error apparent on the face o f the record, discovery of new and important matter which despite d ue diligence could not be pr o duced earlier, or any other sufficien t reason analogous thereto, the o rder under review cannot be reopened merely because another view is possible or because the applicant seeks rehearing of the matter o n merits.

¶20

A perusal of the present re v iew application shows that the revie w -applicant has virtually soug h t re-argument of the entire matter b y reiterating the very same su b missions which had already been con s idered and adjudicated upon b y this Court while passing the detailed o rder dated 25.03.2026.

¶21

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 3

¶23

This Court, while dismissin g the Civil Revision Petitions, had specifically noticed that the Will dated 03.05.2000 had been referred to by respondent No.1 in the w r itten statement itself and the petitione r s had also challenged the s a me in their replication by alleging i t to be forged and fabricated. C onsequently, issue No.2 had already b e en framed on 05.10.2015 in th e following terms:-

¶24

“Whether the Will d a ted 03.05.2000 executed by Saran Kaur in favour of defendant No.1 is wrong, forged and fabricated, procured by defendant No.1 in connivance with wi t nesses? OPP” This Court had further obse r ved that once the petitioners

¶25

themselv e s had specifically pleaded fo r gery and fabrication of the Will, the burden to substantiate the said plea in affirmative evidence was upo n them. However, no such e v idence was led during the affirmati v e evidence of the plaintiffs. Rather, after closure of plaintiffs ’ evidence on 24.05.2017 a n d closure of defendants’ evidence on 22.10.2018, the petitioners m oved applications at the fag end of t h e trial seeking examination o f Handwriting Expert and framing o f additional issue.

¶26

For reference, paras 8 and 9 of the order dated 25.3.2026

¶27

are repro d uced herein below :-

¶28

“8. The petitioners and performa respondents have filed Civil Suit No. 59484 of 2013 seeking declaration that p laintiffs and performa respondents are owne r s in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the s u it land measuring 18K 1M, which was previously in the ownership of Sharan Kaur. The record re v eals that Issues in the suit

¶29

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

4

¶31

RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019

¶32

were framed vide order dated 05.10.2015; plaintiffs' evidence w a s closed on 24.05.2017; and defendants' evidenc e was also closed on 22.10.2018. It is at t h is stage, that the petitioners moved the instant app l ication dated 13.03.2018 for framing of additional issue; and application dated 15.11.2018 for allo w ing Handwriting Expert to examine signatures o f Sharan Kaur and Sadhu Singh, Lamberdar. R e spondents had resisted the applications by filin g 2 separate replies dated 26.11.2018 to the a f oresaid applications of the petitioners. Vide impu g ned order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-3 in CR - 2193-2019), application for examining Handwriting Expert in rebuttal evidence was dismiss e d; and vide impugned order dated 17.03.2019 ( A nnexure P-4 in CR-22202019), application fi led by the petitioners for framing of additional i ssue was dismissed.

¶33

9. From the ab o ve facts, it is clear that applications have bee n moved by the petitioners at fag end of the trial. A s admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Wi l l dated 03.05.2000 had been duly mentioned by t he respondent No.1 in his written statement to t he suit. On a Court query, learned counsel for t he petitioners has admitted that in his replicatio n to the suit, petitioner had taken objection that t h e said Will is a forged and fabricated document. Accordingly, while framing issues vide order dat e d 05.10.2015, learned Trial Court had duly frame d proper issues, which are as under: -

¶34

"1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant 2 to 12 ar e owners and in possession

¶35

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 5

¶37

the land in dispute to the extent of share? O P P

¶38

2

¶39

Whether the will dated 3.5.2000 executed by Saran Kaur in favour of defendan t no.1 is wrong, forged and fabricate d procured by defendant no.1 in connivance by witnesses? OPP

¶40

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to conseque n tial relief of permanent injunctio n as prayed for? OPP

¶41

4. Whether t he suit is not maintainable? OPD

¶42

5. Relief."

¶43

The review-applicant has f a iled to point out any patent illegality or error apparent on the face o f the record in the aforesaid findings r ecorded by this Court.

¶44

The contention now sought to be raised that a separate issue ought to have been framed casting o nus upon defendant No.1 to prove th e execution of the Will, had al r eady been specifically dealt with in t h e order dated 25.03.2026. This Court had categorically held that issu e No.2 already encompassed the controversy regarding genuinen e ss and execution of the Will a nd that the petitioners could not be pe r mitted at such a belated stage t o seek reframing or recasting of issues , particularly when no objectio n had been raised at the time of framing of issues in the year 2015.

¶45

Even otherwise, merely bec a use another issue could also have bee n framed in a different manner w ould not constitute a ground

¶46

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 6

¶48

for revie w of the judgment. Review j u risdiction is not meant for substituti n g one possible view with another.

¶49

The reliance placed by th e review-applicant upon the judgment in K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra) is also wholly misconceived. The said judgment only re c ognizes the inherent powers of the C o urt in exceptional circumstance s . However, exercise of such discretio n depends upon the facts of eac h case. In the present matter, this Court had already considered th e factual position that the applicati o ns had been moved after closur e of evidence and at the final stage of trial despite the petitioners be i ng fully aware of the plea regardin g the Will since filing of the w ritten statement. Thus, no exceptio n al circumstance warranting inte r ference was found to exist. Significantly, the review a p plication does not disclose discover y of any new and important matt e r or evidence which was not within th e knowledge of the review-applicant at the time of passing of the orde r dated 25.03.2026. Rather, t h e entire endeavour of the applicant is only to persuade this Court t o take a different view on the same set o f facts and submissions alread y considered earlier, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.

¶50

It is well settled that rehe a ring of the matter and reappreciat i on of the entire controversy on merits falls outside the purview o f review proceedings. A revie w cannot be allowed merely because t h e applicant is dissatisfied with the conclusions arrived at by the Court.

¶51

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 7

¶53

This Court finds no error a pparent on the face of the record w a rranting review of the detailed o rder dated 25.03.2026.

¶54

Accordingly, finding no m erit in the present review

¶55

applicati o n, the same is dismissed .

¶56

Pending application(s), if an y , shall stand(s) disposed of.