Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1295 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur v. Gurjant Singh

2014-09-16

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Amarjit Kaur-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Gurjant Singh etc.-respondents/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.7.2014 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide which application of the respondents for leading secondary evidence has been allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record and specifically the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala. 3. As per the record, an application was moved by the defendants for leading secondary evidence on the ground that on 13.11.2006, Sukhdev Singh, Patwari, Office Kanungo Tehsil Barnala suffered a statement before the Court that mutation No.3437 was sanctioned on the basis of the Will dated 10.3.1989. However, the original Will is not available in the record produced by him. It was pleaded that the original Will dated 10.3.1989 has been lost by the revenue officials and, therefore, the applicant/defendant may be allowed to lead secondary evidence to prove the Will dated 10.3.1989. 4. Earlier this Court in Civil Revision No.2529 of 2007 had directed the trial Court to adjudicate upon the application moved by the defendant for leading secondary evidence in accordance with law, by recording the positive finding about the loss and existence. From the record, I find that the mutation has already been sanctioned on the basis of the Will on 10.3.1989, which is duly proved by Sukhdev Singh, Patwari, Office Kanungo. This sanctioning of mutation itself proves the existence of the Will. Further more, at the time of arguments, it is argued that the defendant wants to prove the photo copy of the Will. Therefore, from the statement of the Patwari and the photo copy of the Will, the existence of the document is duly proved. 5. Further more, Amarnath Kaushal, Deed Writer DW-3 has also appeared and deposed before the lower Court that he scribed the Will dated 10.3.1989. DW-4 Bhagwan Singh stated that he had signed the Will as an attesting witness. 6. Therefore, from these statements, the existence of the Will is duly proved. Similarly, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, on the basis of the statements of DW-1 and DW-5, has stated that it has been duly proved that the Will in question has been lost. 7. 6. Therefore, from these statements, the existence of the Will is duly proved. Similarly, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, on the basis of the statements of DW-1 and DW-5, has stated that it has been duly proved that the Will in question has been lost. 7. It is clear from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala that the existence and loss of the Will are duly proved. 8. Therefore, from the above, I find that the impugned order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala is correct and as per law, which does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld. 9. Finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------