JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff/petitioner has instituted a suit, before the learned trial Court concerned, seeking therein a declaratory decree, for setting aside the testamentary disposition, executed by deceased testator one Swaru Ram, vis--vis, the defendants, also therein, he has sought a declaratory decree, for the apt mutation(s), as attested in consonance therewith, being also quashed and set aside. 2. The apt paragraph-3 of the plaint, as, extracted hereinafter: "That the land detailed above in para no. 1 of plaint is ancestral Hindu Joint Property in the name of deceased Swaru Ram who was the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family property and late Swaru Ram has no legal right to alienate the same by way of execution of any document." (i) upon its reading it hence makes an ex-facie clear disclosure, qua the plaintiff rather thereon hence anvilling his afore espousal, whereafter, he avers qua hence one Swaru Ram, the deceased testator, being rather disempowered, to make a valid testamentary disposition. The defendants contested, the, aforesaid factum, and, had instituted a written statement, with, clear contentions borne therein, qua the suit property rather being, the selfacquired property, of, deceased Swaru Ram, and hence his being enabled to execute a valid testamentary disposition, qua it. The learned trial Judge, upon, the pleadings of the parties at contest, had, on 7.10.2016, proceeded to frame the hereinafter extracted issues: i) Whether relief of declaration as alleged be granted to the plaintiff? OPP ii) Whether decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be granted to the plaintiff? OPP iii) Whether the deceased Swaru has executed valid Will dated 4.3.2005, in favour of Parma Ram, Karam Chand and Dalip Chand, as allweged? OPD iv) Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD v) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD vi) Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD vii) Whether defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD viii) Relief. 3. The trial, upon, the afore apposite issue(s) has not, yet commenced. OPD vi) Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD vii) Whether defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD viii) Relief. 3. The trial, upon, the afore apposite issue(s) has not, yet commenced. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, before his proceeding, to adduce thereon the plaintiffs'' evidence, rather preferred an application, cast under provisions of Section 151 CPC, wherein he espoused relief, for, eliciting the apt excerpts, appertaining to the suit land, from, the settlement records, since 1868, and, lasting upto date (i) and also, averred in the application, qua the summoning, of, afore excerpts, being essential for hence enabling the Court to rest apt findings, on, the issue appertaining to the suit property, bearing or not bearing, the traits and characteristics, of its, being construable or not construable, to be ancestral coparcenery property. However, the learned trial Judge, under, the impugned order, declined the afore espoused relief to the plaintiff/applicant, (ii) on the ground that with no issue appertaining, to the espoused relief, hence standing framed, thereupon, there being no necessity, of, any permission, being granted to the plaintiff/applicant. The plaintiff is aggrieved therefrom, hence has made a motion before this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, has contended with vigor (i) that the reasoning, as assigned by the learned trial Judge, for declining relief to the plaintiff/applicant, rather being well rested, and, when conspicuously, a, reading of the afore struck issues, does, bear out, the, factum of no trite issue, being struck, by the learned trial Judge, pointedly appertaining to the suit property, being imbued, with, traits and characteristics, of, it hence being construable to be ancestral coparcenery property, (ii) nor any apt discharging onus'' being cast, upon, the plaintiff, reiteratedly hence renders the aforesaid assigned reason, rather to be well merited. However, the aforesaid submission, is not acceptable, (iii) given with this Court, extracting paragraph-3, of the plaint , and the plaintiff rather therein casting a specific averment, with respect to the apt disempowerment(s), of, deceased testator, Swaru Ram, to make any valid execution, of, any testamentary disposition, vis--vis the suit property, (iv) thereupon the afore extracted paragraph-3 also takes within its fold, the aforesaid factum, of non-striking of any pointed issue appertaining therewith (v) besides when the aforesaid apt disempowerment, of, deceased testator Swaru Ram, rears a suspicious circumstance, surrounding the execution, of his Will, and when it is enjoined to be satisfactorily explained; (vi) thereupon, for enabling the plaintiff to, under a valid and admissible relevant evidence, hence rear it, and render thereon efficacious proof, hence the apt relief is affordable to him,(vii) besides, concomitantly when the plaintiff is also enabled, to adduce the apt discharging therewith onus, vis--vis the suit property, qua its carrying traits and characteristics, of, ancestral coparcenary property. 6. Be that as it may, since, for resting the aforesaid contentious fact, and, dehors any specific issue, appertaining therewith, being not struck, the only appropriate motion recoursable, by the plaintiff/applicant, for proving the contentious fact, was hence comprised in his moving, the, apt application, before the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, has also contended with much vigor, before this Court, that apart, from, the summoning of the relevant excerpts, through, the kanungo concerned, and, theirs being proved by him, the yet relevant best evidence, for resting hence clinching findings, on, the afore-referred contentious fact, rather, is comprised in the plaintiff seeking, summoning of the entire relevant records, conspicuously even the records apart, from the excerpts. (i) He also submits, that, the appending, of, a certified copy of the relevant record, with, the plaint, being an enjoined necessity, and, with the aforesaid appendings not being made with the plaint nor any leave being sought, nor being granted by the learned trial Judge, (ii) thereupon, plaintiff/applicant, through the instant application, has contrived a legal mechanism, to, inchoately hence circumvent the apt statutory provision(s), predominantly, also when for discharing the apt onus vis-vis issue No. 1, the adduction of the espoused evidence, is both not just and essential. 7. 7. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, given the learned counsel for the plaintiff, placing on record chapter-9 of the relevant instructions, as, appertaining therewith, relevant paragraph, whereof is extracted hereinafter: "For the purpose of making the information contained in the revenue records accessible to the litigating public and to the Courts; a Special Kanungo or Patwari Moharrir has been appointed in all the districts of the Punjab, except Shimla. The procedure to be followed in such cases is that the Court in which the suit is pending issues a summons to the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir, who, after preparing his excerpt, goes to the Court on the date fixed, taking with him the revenue records from which the excerpt has been complied. He is then placed in the witness box. Counsel thus have the opportunity of comparing the excerpt with the originals, and of examining him on any points they choose. 2. Parties who desire to summon the Special Kanungo or Patwari, Muharrir as a witness with his records must be required to state succinctly and in writing the point on which information is required, and the application must be sent along with the summons to the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir. The Courts must see that the application is in a readily intelligible form before they issue it, and lthe practice where it occurs, of sending for the Special Kanungo, or Patwari Muharrir to tell him what is required must be discontinued, though Courts may also issue written instructions, or supplement or correct the application." (i) an apt perusal whereof, makes clear revelations, that the civil Courts concerned, being empowered to issue summons to the Special Kanungo or to Patwari Muharrir,and, also to mete directions, upon them, for elicitation, of, relevant excerpts, appertaining to the suit land, for, hence, enabling the Civil Courts concerned, to pronounce clear findings, upon, the apposite issue. There also occurs a clear elucidation therein qua the Kanungo Patwari or Muharrir concerned, being enjoined, to, step into the witness box, for proving the excerpts. 8. There also occurs a clear elucidation therein qua the Kanungo Patwari or Muharrir concerned, being enjoined, to, step into the witness box, for proving the excerpts. 8. Consequently, the afore contemplated special mechanism, appertaining, vis--vis summoning of excerpts, and, for proving them, hence enjoin meteing(s) of deference thereto, thereupon, there was no necessity, cast, upon the plaintiff/applicant, to either (i) append with the plaint, the, relevant documents, appertaining, vis--vis the contentious issue, (ii) nor the learned counsel for the plaintiff was enjoined to, even if, they initially remained un-apended therewith, hence through an appropriate application, rather seek, the apt leave of the trial Court concerned, to append them with the plaint, (iii) besides it was not imperative, for the learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant, to thereafter, cite the relevant official concerned, as a witness, nor he was enjoined to make any disclosures therein qua the necessity of, his hence proving the certified copies, of, the apt documents, from originals thereof, (iv) rather reiteratedly, with the afore special contemplation, appertaining to elicitation of excerpts, for hence proving them, also, rather enjoined the learned trial Judge to afford relief to the plaintiff, than, to refuse it. Consequently, the impugned verdict is reversed, and, the instant petition is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court concerned, on 3.10.2018. 9. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.