JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Application for additional evidence preferred by the defendants, respondents herein, for proving resolution dated 12.1.1992 of Gurdwara Sahib Bhangi Nihal Singh whereby Harnek Singh is shown to have been working as Granthi with the Gurdwara Sahib by examining President of the Gurdwara Sahib, namely, Sukhdev Singh. The said resolution is sought to be proved to bring on record that said Harnek Singh could read Punjabi language and also could append his signatures. 2. Dispute before the Court is with regard to succession of Harnek Singh which is contested by the defendants-respondents by way of Will allegedly from Harnek Singh in their favour. 3. Claim of the plaintiff, petitioner herein, is that the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the lower court is based on highly delayed and belated resolution sought to be proved in additional evidence as it is of 12.1.1992. It is also claimed that the Will propounded by the defendants-respondents from Harnek Singh is forged and fabricated. 4. From the perusal of the paper book, it emerges that plea of the defendants, respondents herein, on the other hand, is that the Will is genuine and Harnek Singh was not only able to read and write Punjabi in Gurmukhi script but also was a learned man being a Granthi. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff, petitioner herein, has urged that the evidence otherwise is also not relevant because the resolution sought to be produced only shows that Sukhdev Singh was appointed as President of the Managing Committee. 6. The question, at this stage, is not to test merits of the rival claims of the parties as to whether the Will is genuine or forged? The question is as to whether evidence sought to be produced additionally by the defendants, respondents herein, is relevant and would advance the cause of justice in adjudication of the matter in dispute between the parties or not? Since the Will is propounded by the defendants, respondents herein, and they want to prove it to be the genuine Will of Harnek Singh, they need to produce evidence that it was duly signed by the testator. Signatures would appear only if he was literate and could read and write Punjabi language. Since the Will is propounded by the defendants, respondents herein, and they want to prove it to be the genuine Will of Harnek Singh, they need to produce evidence that it was duly signed by the testator. Signatures would appear only if he was literate and could read and write Punjabi language. In this context, the evidence sought to be produced additionally touches the core issue and would be essential for effective and complete adjudication of the matter between the parties and would also avoid multiplicity of litigation which otherwise is bound to arise. 7. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the plaintiff, petitioner herein, has cited Ram Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar and others 2014(3) Civil Court Cases 453 (P&H) and K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy, [2011(3) Law Herald (SC) 2036] : 2011(2) Civil Court Cases 823 (Supreme Court) but both these authorities have duly been discussed in detail by the learned lower court and after such discussion, the said court had come to a firm conclusion that the resolution dated 12.1.1992 could not be produced earlier by the defendants since the same was not traceable with them at that time and further that the evidence is of such nature that it is essentially required. 8. So far as rights of the plaintiff, petitioner herein, are concerned, those have also been duly taken care of by the lower court as opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses to be examined for proving resolution dated 12.1.1992 has been allowed to him. 9. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, the application for leading additional evidence (Annexure P-3) was rightly allowed by the lower court vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-5). 10. Sequelly, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out and affirming the same, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 11. It is, however, felt that since the application for additional evidence was filed at a belated stage and the suit is pending adjudication since long, the lower court would decide the same at the earliest and not beyond three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, even by conducting day to day proceedings, if the situation so demands. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————