JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) This regular second appeal stands filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Concurrent findings of fact are challenged by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff who is the appellant herein, filed a suit for declaration praying as under:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed to the effect that the Will No. 235 dated 4.7.2000 is forged and fictitious one and as such is null and void in the eye’s of law and it has no binding effect upon the rights of the plaintiff and the mutations No. 1430 dated 30.12.2002 and 2649 dated 8.1.2003 attested on the basis of aforesaid Will are also wrong, null and void and are liable to be cancelled and or any other relief to which this learned court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice and justice be done.” 3. It is not in dispute that plaintiff and defendants – respondents herein are real brothers. Defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, pleading execution of a valid will by their mother Smt Chunti Devi. 4. Based on the pleadings of parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Will dated 4.7.2000 executed by deceased Chunti Devi is forged and fictitious document, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether Mutation No. 1430 dated 30.12.2002 and 2649 dated 8.1.2003 are wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether deceased Smt. Chunti Devi had executed a legal and valid Will dated 4.7.2000 in favour of the parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief.” 5. Trial Court dismissed the suit in terms of judgment and decree dated 27.9.2008, passed in Civil Suit No. 165 of 2005, titled as Bhagat Ram vs. Shyam Chand & others. Issues stand decided in favour of the defendants. 6. Findings of fact, judgment and decree stands affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.2010, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2009, titled as Bhagat Ram vs. Shyam Chand & others. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Issues stand decided in favour of the defendants. 6. Findings of fact, judgment and decree stands affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.2010, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2009, titled as Bhagat Ram vs. Shyam Chand & others. Hence, the present appeal. 7. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether both the courts below have misread, mininterpreted and misconstrued oral as well as the documentary evidence of the parties especially the statement of PW-2 to PW-5, Ex. D1 to D-8 and Ext. DW3/A which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellant? 2. Whether the judicial papers for the year 1995 and 1999 on which alleged Will was written which were not issued from the Treasury Office Kullu and these judicial papers were brought from the office DW-2 Shri T.C. Verma is one of the suspicious circumstance of the alleged Will dated 4.7.2000?” “6. Whether by dismissing the application Under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure by the ld. First appellate court of the appellant has caused grave mis-carriage of justice to the appellant as the appellant was deprived to prove the genuineness of the judicial papers and the copy of Will retained in the office of Sub Registrar Kullu?” 8. Sh. Shyam Chand (respondent No. 1) appeared in person and argued the matter also on behalf of other respondents. Having heard submissions on both sides, I am of the considered view that present appeal only merits rejection. 9. That plaintiff and defendants are real brothers, born through Smt. Chunti Devi is not in dispute. Will (Ext. DW 2/A-1) [wrongly typed as DW-3/A) in substantial question No. 1] is a registered document. It was registered before the Sub Registrar Kullu on 4.7.2000. Undisputedly, testator distributed her properties amongst all of her sons. According to the plaintiff, property having more value stands willed to his brothers, thus he has been wrongly and unfairly treated. 10. It is not in dispute that Chunti Devi died on 24.11.2002. It is not a case of succession but devolution of right in terms of a testament. 11. Conjoint reading of testimonies of the propounder, as also witnesses of the plaintiff conclusively establishes the fact that as on the date of execution of Will, testator was in a sound disposing state of mind. She was mentally and physically alert. 12. It is not a case of succession but devolution of right in terms of a testament. 11. Conjoint reading of testimonies of the propounder, as also witnesses of the plaintiff conclusively establishes the fact that as on the date of execution of Will, testator was in a sound disposing state of mind. She was mentally and physically alert. 12. The propounder, through the testimony of scribe Sh. Chuhru Ram (DW-3) and the attesting witness Sh. T. S. Verma (DW-2) a practicing Advocate at Kullu, has clearly established the following facts:-Valid execution of Will; testator being a person of sound disposing state of mind; could distinguish between right and wrong; expressed her desire of getting the Will executed for which parties, came to the courts at Kullu; contents of the Will were read over and explained to her; and that she signed the same in the presence of the attesting witnesses who also appended their signature thereupon in her presence and presence of each other. Sh. Chuhru Ram (DW-3) has further clarified that Sh. Lal Chand, another attesting witness, signed in his presence. Will is a registered document. Thus the Courts below, in my considered view, rightly held the propounder to have proved valid execution of the Will. 13. It is argued that there is contradiction in the testimony of DW-2 and DW-3 with regard to execution of the Will. DW3 states that a draft was prepared, whereas, according to DW-2 no such draft was prepared. The lower appellate Court, in my considered view, has rightly dealt with this contradiction in paragraphs – 23 and 24 of the judgment. 14. It is further argued that in the absence of any positive report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, execution of it could not be said to have been proved. Significantly, report is dated 2.7.2008. As per this report, thumb mark on the document was incapable of comparison due to ink being smudged. One cannot ignore the fact that Will was executed in the year 2000 and report (opinion) is of the year 2008. In any event propounder through testimonies of the reliable and trustworthy witnesses has proved valid execution of Will not only that it was actually acted upon and given effect to in the revenue record. 15. One cannot ignore the fact that Will was executed in the year 2000 and report (opinion) is of the year 2008. In any event propounder through testimonies of the reliable and trustworthy witnesses has proved valid execution of Will not only that it was actually acted upon and given effect to in the revenue record. 15. Undisputedly, as facts emerge from record, more so through the testimony of the plaintiff, in the year 1986, testator herself had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from all her sons. It was rather unfortunate for such a thing to have happened. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that at that point in time, testator was in fact living with the plaintiff. Despite the same, she did not completely oust him from the bequeath. 16. To my mind, there is no mis-appreciation, misinterpretation or mis-reading of oral or documentary evidence on record by the Courts below. 17. It is next argued that judicial papers on which the Will was executed are of the year 1995 and 1999. According to the learned counsel for the appellant they were not issued by the Treasury Office, Kullu. It is not the case of the plaintiff that papers, on which Will was scribed, were manufactured by the respondents or their Lawyer. Now whether Will was scribed on judicial papers issued in the year 1995/1999 or 2000 is immaterial. Genuineness of the papers having been printed by the government is not in dispute. The Will being scribed on such papers cannot be said to be a suspicious circumstance particularly when it was registered before the authorities concerned. 18. Undisputedly, both before the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, plaintiff filed applications for leading additional evidence. They were rejected. The lower appellate Court, while rejecting the application, in my considered view correctly appreciated the provisions of law. I find favour with the reasons assigned as contained in paragraph-22 of the judgment. 19. On this issue itself, it would be beneficial to record that on 5.5.2008, trial court directed the document to be examined by an Expert. Report was received by the trial Court. Plaintiff moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, which was withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff filed another application under Section 151 CPC, praying for summoning of record from the Treasury Office. Report was received by the trial Court. Plaintiff moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, which was withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff filed another application under Section 151 CPC, praying for summoning of record from the Treasury Office. Trial Court dismissed the application on 17.7.2008 with costs. Plaintiff accepted the order which reads as under: “17.7.2008: Present: Plaintiff in person with ld. Counsel Sh. S. R. Thakur, Advocate. Sh. B. C. Thakur, Ld. Counsel for defendants No. 1 & 2. Defendant No. 3 is already exparte. ORDER Reply to application under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 & 2. Application taken up for consideration. The instant application has been filed by the plaintiff on the plea that he wants to produce Dealing Hand alongwith record of Distt. Treasury, Kullu in order to prove that judicial paper bearing No. 0423498 of 1999 used in Will Ext.DW2/A was never received by the aforesaid Treasury from Printing and Stationery Department, Shimla and was not delivered to Stamp Vendor for sale. According to plaintiff, this piece of evidence was not in his knowledge, therefore, could not be produced after exercise of due diligence at the time of leading evidence. He has also relied upon Certificate of Treasury issued in his favour to the aforesaid effect. Application is duly supported with an affidavit. On the other hand, the contesting defendants have opposed the application. The replying defendants have submitted that plaintiff fail to exercise due diligence while leading evidence and apart from this even if the plaintiff is allowed to lead additional evidence it will amount to an exercise in futility. It is also the contention of the replying defendants that Judicial paper bearing No. 0423498 was never used in scribing Will Ext. DW2/A. The application under discussion is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The reply also supported with an affidavit. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and also gone through the relevant material on record. The following points arise for determination:- 1. Whether there are sufficient grounds so as to allow the plaintiff to lead additional evidence? 2. Final order. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:- Point No. 1: No. Point No. 2: Application dismissed with costs as per operative part of the order. Reasons for Findings: Point No.1: While appreciating the arguments of ld. 2. Final order. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on the aforesaid points are as under:- Point No. 1: No. Point No. 2: Application dismissed with costs as per operative part of the order. Reasons for Findings: Point No.1: While appreciating the arguments of ld. Counsel for both the parties I have perused Will Ext. DW2/A. Its bare perusal shows that Judicial Paper bearing No. 0423498 of 1999 has not been used in the Will in question. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the Judicial Paper bearing No. 0423498 of 1999 was not received by the Distt. Treasury, Kullu. Apart from this the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff after exercise of due diligence could not lead evidence on the aforesaid point. In this behalf, I find that the plaintiff led his evidence as long back as in the month of August, 2006. The plaintiff’s evidence culminated on 7.7.2007. Therefore, the plaintiff took as many as 11 months to complete his evidence. To satisfy test of due diligence, it is not sufficient to support an application with an affidavit. The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that since his application is supported by an affidavit, therefore, this fact in itself is sufficient for this Court to believe that the plaintiff after exercise of due diligence could not produce additional evidence. In my opinion, the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are totally misconceived and has not been able to convince this Court. Exercise of due diligence, to my mind, is how far the party concerned is alert and observant about the kind of evidence, he seeks to produce in a given case. Here in the present case, as already discussed above, the plaintiff to my surprise failed to exercise due diligence despite having an opportunity to complete his evidence in a whopping period of 11 months. So much so, the plaintiff while cross examining the defendants witnesses through his counsel could not bring this fact on record that the judicial paper bearing particular No. was not received, though not relevant, by the Distt. Treasury Kullu for scribing the Will Ex. DW2/A. Besides this, the plaintiff was also afforded an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, since defendants evidence was closed on 24.10.2006. Treasury Kullu for scribing the Will Ex. DW2/A. Besides this, the plaintiff was also afforded an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence, since defendants evidence was closed on 24.10.2006. The plaintiff availed as many as 5 opportunities to lead rebuttal evidence during a span of more than six months. Even then this fact of additional evidence could not be brought on record. The plaintiff’s rebuttal evidence came to an end on 31.5.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff chose to file an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC to place on record certain evidence which was however, allowed by this Court in his favour. Subsequent to that the plaintiff came with another application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act praying for comparison of thumb impression of deceased Chunti by expert. This request of the plaintiff was acceded to by this Court and the thumb impression was sent accordingly. In my opinion the thirst of the plaintiff to file an applications did not come to an end and again, during the pendency of application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, he came with another application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC which was withdrawn by him on 16.7.2008 for the reasons best known to him. In the aforesaid background I am constrained to hold the opinion that the plaintiff is dilly dallying this case this way or that way and is evading to argue this case finally. While looking upon Will Ext. DW-2/A I find that judicial paper bearing No. 0423498 of 1999 has not been used. I shudder to think that the plaintiff chose to file this application without cross checking the documents on record. The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in order to buttress his arguments relied on 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 420 (422) (Supreme Court) in case titled as Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu versus Union of India. Ld. Counsel while dwelling upon his arguments submitted that even though Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC does not entitle production of evidence yet in a case the Court is satisfied on this count the party concerned can be allowed to lead additional evidence. I have gone through the above referred case law. There is no denying the fact that in case the party is able to satisfy the Court, in that event, the Court can allow the party to lead additional evidence. I have gone through the above referred case law. There is no denying the fact that in case the party is able to satisfy the Court, in that event, the Court can allow the party to lead additional evidence. Here in the present case, as discussed above, the plaintiff has not been able to satisfy the Court so as to make out a case for leading additional evidence. Apart from this, the facts of above referred case law are entirely different. Hon’ble supreme court came to hold the opinion with regard to production of additional evidence while discussing provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC after amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. This court s in full agreement with the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the party can be allowed to lead additional evidence in case the Court is satisfied. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon 2006(2) Punjab Law Journal 631 in case tiled Pawan Kumar versus Raj Kumar and others. I have also gone through this case law relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Since judicial paper bearing No. 0423498 of 1999 has not been used in scribing Will Ext. DW-2/A, therefore, I am of the opinion that the evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff as additional evidence does not go to the root of the case. Therefore, aforesaid case law is of no help to the plaintiff. Before I depart I deem it appropriate to discuss that the plaintiff by filing plethora of applications has certainly caused inconvenience to the defendants. Therefore, they deserve to be compensated and the application deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Accordingly point No. 1 is answered against the plaintiff. Final order: In view of my findings of point No. 1 above, this application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. It be tagged with main file. Now last order be complied so as to say thumb impressions in question be sent for comparison. Draft be sent to Phillaur in the name of Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur. Report be called for 25.8.2008. Sd/- Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul – Spiti at Kullu, H.P.” 20. It is not that evidence sought to be produced and proved was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He did not lead any evidence despite several opportunities afforded. Report be called for 25.8.2008. Sd/- Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul – Spiti at Kullu, H.P.” 20. It is not that evidence sought to be produced and proved was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He did not lead any evidence despite several opportunities afforded. Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence. As such, both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate court rightly dismissed the application. 21. Also, application cannot be allowed in view of settled principles of law laid down by the apex Court in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 as also this Court in Sakeen Chand vs. Fateh Singh, 2012 (1) Him. L.R. 91; Satya Devi @ Sita Devi & others vs. Rajo Devi & others, Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 582; and Joginder Singh & others vs. Desh Raj,Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 720. 22. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same is perverse which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.