Hamek Singh vs Bachan Kaur

S.D.Anand, J.

1 The evidence of the defendantspetitioners came to be closed after he had availed of as many as seven effective opportunities there for. All along, he did not apply for examining any hand writing expert. Both the parties had based their respective claims on the basis of a will. The plaintiffrespondent had based the claim for relief on the basis of a will dated 15.12.2001. As against it, the defendantspetitioners had placed reliance upon will dated 25.8.2001. It was thereafter that the closure of the rebuttal evidence defendantspetitioners filed a plea for additional evidence for the leave of the Court to examine hand writing and finger print expert to prove the falsity of the will dated 15.12.2001. That plea of his did not find favour with the learned Trial Court which observed, on facts, that the application had been filed at a belated stage and "only with an intention to linger on the proceedings."

2 Learned counsel for the defendantspetitioners argues that the adducing of proposed evidence would enable the Civil Court to adjudicate Civil Revision No. 1770 of 20082 upon the controversy effectively and completely.

3 The plea is resisted on behalf of the respondent. It is argued that the defendantspetitioners had already availed of as many as seven opportunities for adducing his evidence and they cannot be allowed to delay the proceedings any further by requesting for the leave of the Court to examine hand writing expert.

4 There is no dispute with the factual premise that the defendants petitioners did avail of indicated number of opportunities for adducing its evidence. Both the parties were in the know of the nature of the controversy from the very beginning. The respondentplaintiff had adduced evidence to prove the execution/validity of the will dated 15.12.2001. Likewise, defendantspetitioners also closed their evidence. The onus was upon defendantspetitioners to prove the falsity of the will dated 15.12.2001. The defendantspetitioners could succeed in obtaining the nonsuiting of the plaintiffrespondent only by proving the will in their favour but also by proving that will dated 15.12.2001 was a forged affair or invalid. The defendants petitioners were, thus, cognizant of the pleadings of the parties. That controversy was, even otherwise, apparent from the issues which arose out of the pleadings of the parties.

5 The relevant matter have been instituted in the year 2003. We are presently in the year 2009. The dockets in the Civil Courts are fairly heavy. No indulgence can be shown by this Court in the matter of allowance of a belated and misconceived plea for additional evidence.

6 In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.