JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.02.2006, whereby, application moved by respondent No.6 for permission to lead additional evidence, was allowed. 2. The trial court while allowing the application has observed as under:- “In the affidavit of DW-12/A defendant No.6 is intending to produce in additional evidence mainly deposition regarding the fact of mis-placement and nontracibility of the alleged original will in dispute. Earlier defendant tried to produce said affidavit in their rebuttal evidence but on the objection of plaintif that this affidavit cannot be produced on rebuttal evidence and finding that said affidavit, does not come within the purview of rebuttal evidence of defendant so, their said affidavit stated to be not admissbile in rebuttal evidence of defendant that is why defendant/applicant has filed the present application for tendering said affidavit in additional evidence. The main contention of the Ld. counsel for plaintiff/respondent is that facts mentioned in the alleged affidavit were very much within the knowledge of the defendant party so, same cannot be allowed to be adduced in additional evidence. In support of their abovesaid contentions counsel for respondent/plaintiff relied upon ruling of our Hon’ble High Court contained in 1994 (2) CCC66, 1989CCC79. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for applicant/defendant argued that abovesaid evidence is very much material for the just decision of the case as the main dispute between the parties is regarding inheritance of the deceased Kartan Singh. Applicant/defendant has propounded registered Will dt.14.3.69 and they have brought evidence in support of their plea by seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. Inadvertantly, they could not bring evidence regarding non-tracibility of original Will. Abovesaid affidavit of defendant No.6 which they want to produce containing examination in chief and further want to produce defendant No.6 for cross-examination, is with regard to fact of non-tracibility of said Will. After hearing the Ld. counsel for parties and going through the file and coming to the conclusion that evidence which applicant is intending to produce in additional evidence is very much essential and necessary for just decision of the case. For the negligence of defendant, they can be burdened with costs. After hearing the Ld. counsel for parties and going through the file and coming to the conclusion that evidence which applicant is intending to produce in additional evidence is very much essential and necessary for just decision of the case. For the negligence of defendant, they can be burdened with costs. So, in view of abovesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, application for additional evidence of applicant/defendant accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- and applicant/defendant allowed to produce the said affidavit Ex.DW-12/A in additional evidence subject to payment of abovesaid cost. Now for payment of abovesaid cost and for above said evidence to come up on 23.2.2006.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier respondent No.6 had sought to tender the affidavit qua loss of the original Will in question in rebuttal and the said prayer was declined vide Annexure P-1. Therefore, respondent No.6 could not be allowed to tender the same affidavit by way of additional evidence. 4. In the present case, petitioners have filed suit for declaration. Admittedly, in the said suit, the registered Will dated 14.03.1969 is under challenge. The onus to prove the will was on the defendants whereas, the onus to prove that the Will was a forged and fabricated document was on the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court had rightly disallowed respondent No.6 to place additional affidavit on record in rebuttal evidence as only the plaintiff could have led the rebuttal evidence. However, respondent No.6 could have been allowed to lead additional evidence if it was necessary for the just decision of the case. The case of respondent No.6 is that while tendering his affidavit, due to inadvertence, it could not be pleaded that the original Will in question was not traceable. Now by way of an affidavit respondent No.6 wants to plead that the original Will in question was not traceable. Petitioners would get a chance to crossexamine respondent No.6. Application to prove the Will by way of secondary evidence has been allowed. Petitioners have been duly compensated with costs. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the trial court while allowing the application for permission to lead additional evidence are sound reasons and call for no interference. 5. Dismissed.