Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1407 (DEL)

Chetan Dayal v. Aruna Malhotra

2020-10-22

ANU MALHOTRA

body2020
JUDGMENT Anu Malhotra, J. - The applicant/ petitioner vide the instant Review Petition No.119/2020, under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 (as amended) seeks a review of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 of this Court in CM (M) 828/2018 submitting to the effect that there is an error apparent in para 20 of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018 and that the petitioner would suffer great prejudice if the judgment dated 01.07.2020 to the extent that it observed vide para 20 to the effect "..........that the petitioner herein had disowned the document dated 4.2.1997 before the local police at Chandigarh and had also submitted that late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith was incompetent to execute the Will dated 4.2.1997 as the property at Chandigarh was an ancestral property..........." are not set aside as it would impact the adjudication of the suit before the learned trial Court. 2. Inter alia on behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the observations in para 20 of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018 are not in consonance with the document on the record and the contention that has been raised on behalf of the respondent no.2 to this effect ought not to have been accepted by this Court. It is submitted through para 17 of the present review petition that the observations of this Court as contained in para 20 would pre-empt an independent finding by the learned trial Court. 3. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents. The respondent no.3 is the DDA arrayed as a proforma party in the matter. 4. Submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner and on behalf of the respondent no.1 and on behalf of the respondent no.2 qua the petition vehemently opposing the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. Vide the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018, this Court declined the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner herein seeking the setting aside of the order dated 31.5.2018 of the learned Additional District Judge-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby inter alia an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, 1908 filed by the respondent No.2 herein through his LRs for the amendment in the written statement was allowed. 6. 6. The facts relating to CM (M) 828/2018 are observed in the judgment dated 01.07.2020 to the effect: "3.The petitioner in the instant case is the plaintiff of CS No. 56158/16 seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in property bearing No.E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and has also sought mesne profits and rendition of accounts. The claim of the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein is that the suit property was owned by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith vide a perpetual lease Deed dated 6.4.1971 and late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith vide a gift deed dated 3.6.1974 transferred his half undivided share in the suit property to the defendant No.1, i.e., the respondent No.1 herein, and made his last and final Will dated 4.2.1997 by virtue of which he bequeathed his half undivided share to the defendant No.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein, and the remaining half undivided share to the plaintiff. The petitioner further submitted that Sh.Dayal Chand Kaith died on 3.12.1997 and on his death, the plaintiff to the suit, i.e., the petitioner herein and the defendant no.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein now represented through his legal representatives, became the owners of 1/4th undivided share in the suit property bearing No. E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, with the defendant No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 herein being the owner of 1/2 share of the suit property and thus the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, came into constructive possession of the suit property and became entitled to rent from the tenant and to possession thereof upon vacation by the tenant. 4. According to the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, on 28.1.1999, the defendant No.1, i.e., the respondent No.1 as the attorney of defendant No.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein, filed a suit for declaration that the Will dated 4.2.1997 was not genuine and on 25.2.1999, the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, for declaration to the effect that the Will dated 4.2.1997 is the last Will of Late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith. Dayal Chand Kaith. It is further submitted that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh vide judgment dated 30.7.2004 partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the Will dated 4.2.1997 is the last and final Will of the deceased Dayal Chand Kaith which judgment has become final and thus the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, filed the suit praying that a decree be passed in his favour and against the defendants no.1 and 2, i.e.,the respondents No.1 and 2 herein for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff''s 1/4th share of the suit property as well as for mesne profits and rendition of accounts etc. 5.The defendants No.1 and 2, i.e., the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, vide their joint written statement contested the suit of the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, and categorically denied the execution of the Will dated 4.2.1997 by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith and according to them late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith during his lifetime had executed two Wills one dated 21.12.1995 and another dated 9.8.1996. 6.The legal representatives of the defendant now arrayed as the respondents No.2(i), (ii) and (iii) to the present petition, sought amendment of the written statement on the ground that the plaintiff therein, i.e., the petitioner herein, had made a statement before the Local Police at Chandigarh by lodging the FIR No. 13 with PS 03, Chandigarh dated 24.1.2011 whereby the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein had made a statement that the immovable property situated at Plot No. 213 Sector 9C, Chandigarh is an ancestral property and whereas the claim of the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, in the suit out of which the present petition arises accepted had propounded the last alleged Will dated 4.2.1997 of late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith to contend that the property at Chandigarh was owned by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith at the time of his death and the same was bequeathed by way of the said alleged Will to the petitioner herein. Dayal Chand Kaith to contend that the property at Chandigarh was owned by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith at the time of his death and the same was bequeathed by way of the said alleged Will to the petitioner herein. It is submitted by the legal representatives of respondent No.2 arrayed as LR 2(i), (ii) and (iii) to the present petition that by making these admissions the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein had himself disowned his very document dated 4.2.1997 before the local police at Chandigarh, which is the basis of the present suit and it was averred that after lodging the FIR, the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein got a collusive Suit no. 439/2011 filed before the Court of the Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Chandigarh, seeking partition inter alia amongst other reliefs on the ground that late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith was incompetent to execute the Will dated 4.2.1997 as the property of Chandigarh was an ancestral property. The legal heirs of the defendant No.2 herein thus contended that they be thus allowed to amend the written statement by raising preliminary objections and submissions and the legal representatives of the respondent No.2 herein had thus sought addition of additional preliminary objections as mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and also the amendment of paragraph 8 on merits." 7. Vide order dated 31.05.2018, the learned Additional District Judge-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS No.56158/2016 allowed the prayer made by the defendant no.2 (now represented by his legal representatives) seeking amendment in the written statement filed by them inter alia observing to the effect: "22. Suffice it is to state that th(sic) evidence is yet to commence. LRs of defendant no.2 seek to place on record subsequent events that have occurred after filing the written statement which will not prejudice the plaintiff in any manner. The amendments are in the nature of an update of the pending litigation between, the parties and no more. The amendments are relevant and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. By way of present amendment, defendant is not seeking to withdraw any admission. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, plaintiff prima facie himself has taken contradictory pleas. There appears no legal impediment in allowing the present application filed by the defendant. By way of present amendment, defendant is not seeking to withdraw any admission. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, plaintiff prima facie himself has taken contradictory pleas. There appears no legal impediment in allowing the present application filed by the defendant. Accordingly, the application is allowed." and thus the prayer that was made by the defendant no.2 i.e. the respondent no.2 now represented herein through his LRs to amend the written statement was permitted. 8. Vide judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018 it was observed by this Court to the effect: "20.On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, it is apparent that the amendments sought by the legal representatives of the respondent No.2 are due to the subsequent events that had taken place after institution of the suit that has been lodged by the petitioner herein, in as much as the suit was filed in the year 2006 and the written statement was filed in the year 2007 and the FIR in question was lodged by the petitioner herein bearing No.13 at Police Station 03 at Chandigarh which is dated 24.1.2011 wherein the petitioner herein had made a statement that the immovable property situated at Sector 9C Chandigarh, the property in question in the suit CS(OS) No. 56158/2016 which the petitioner had claimed to have been bequeathed to the extent of 1/4th share in property E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, Delhi apart from the relief of mesne profits and rendition of accounts and seeking partition and separate possession in view of the Will dated 4.2.1997 inter alia executed by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith, in his favour, whereas the petitioner herein in the FIR No. 13/2011 had submitted that the immovable property situated at 213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh, was an ancestral property and that the petitioner herein had disowned the document dated 4.2.1997 before the local police at Chandigarh and had also submitted that late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith was incompetent to execute the Will dated 4.2.1997 as the property at Chandigarh was an ancestral property, it is apparent that the petitioner herein seeks to take different stands in different proceedings qua the Will dated 4.2.1997 stated to have been executed by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith on the basis of which he had filed the suit CS(OS)56158/2016 bearing initial No. 2318/2006. Dayal Chand Kaith on the basis of which he had filed the suit CS(OS)56158/2016 bearing initial No. 2318/2006. In the circumstances, it is apparent that in as much as the trial having not started at the time when the amendment was allowed and the recording of evidence having not commenced till the date of the impugned order, there is apparently no infirmity in the impugned order." 9. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the observations in para 20 in the judgment dated 01.07.2020, of which, review was sought were based on the following facts: "(i) the Petitioner had disowned the Will dated 4.2.1997; and that (ii) Late Sh. D.C. Kaith was incompetent to execute the said Will as the immovable property described as House No. 213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh was an ancestral property." and that the said factors were not borne out through the record in as much as in the FIR No.13/2011 registered at PS 03, Chandigarh dated 24.01.2011, the petitioner had stated to the effect: " ..... As per our family settlement, because of the fact that 1 have donated my kidney to my mother and that the present house is an ancestral house as it was constructed by my grandfather Sh. D.C. Kaith I am in possession of the entire first floor including the open terrace, one office in the front room of the house, one bed room on the ground floor, annexe and a servant room I quarter ... ...... " 10. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that IA No.10283/2013 which was filed by the legal heirs of the respondent no.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 before the learned trial Court seeking an amendment of the written statement had submitted therein to the effect: "5. ...... " 10. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that IA No.10283/2013 which was filed by the legal heirs of the respondent no.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 before the learned trial Court seeking an amendment of the written statement had submitted therein to the effect: "5. That, subsequent to the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff herein made a statement before the local police in Chandigarh by lodging a First Information report bearing F.I.R. No. I 3 with P.S. 03, Chandigarh dated 24.01.2011 whereby the Plaintiff has specifically and categorically made a statement and a claim that the immovable property situated at Plot No. 213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh, is an ancestral property whereas as per the claim of the plaintiff in the present suit including the document propounded by him as the last Will of Late Dayal Chand Kaith allegedly dated 04.02.1997, the property at Chandigarh was owned by Late Dayal Chand Kaith at the time of his death and the same was bequeathed by way of the said alleged Will allegedly dated 04.02.1997. 6. That, by way of making the above noted admissions, the plaintiff himself has disowned the very document dated 04.02.1997 before the local police in Chandigarh, which is the basis of the present suit. 7. That, moreover, after lodging of the said FIR, the Plaintiff got a collusive suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh bearing number 439 of 2011 dated 16.02.2011, in collusion with his wife, Smt. Madhu Dayal purportedly on behalf of their minor son, praying for partition inter alia other relief on the ground and pleas that Shri Dayal Chand Kaith was incompetent to execute the Will dated 04.02.1997 as the property at Chandigarh was an ancestral property and the deceased in question had no power/ capacity to bequeath the same. It is humbly submitted that as per the said case, the plaintiff is in total departure from his suit / stand taken before this Hon ''b/e Court and the defendants are entitled to raise preliminary objections in their statements due to the subsequent events and the defendants are liable to be allowed to incorporate the said additional preliminary objections in their written statement by way of amendment, as follows." 11. The petitioner placed reliance thus on his reply to these paragraphs which read to the effect: "5. The petitioner placed reliance thus on his reply to these paragraphs which read to the effect: "5. That in reply to para 5 of the application, it is submitted that since unfortunately family dispute arose between the Plaintiff and his brother and father, therefore to protect his possession in the property at Chandigarh, the Plaintiff lodged FIR No. 13 dated 24.01.2011. It is submitted that the contents of said FlR lodged by the Plaintiff does not in any manner detract from the validity of the Will dated 04.02.1997 executed by Late Sh. D. C. Kaith. The execution and validity of the said Will has already been pronounced by the Court at Chandigarh in a inter-parties litigation. The issue regarding validity of the Will dated 04.02.1997 has already assumed finality between the parties. The statement in the FIR that the House No. 213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh is an ancestral house because it was constructed by the plaintiffs grandfather Sh. D. C. Kaith had no competence to execute the Will dated 04.02.1997. The plaintiff lodged the FIR only with a view to safeguard his right in the Chandigarh house and it was sought to be emphasized that since his father (Sh. Rup Dayal) got the Chandigarh property from his grandfather (Sh. D.C. Kaith), therefore, the plaintiff also had an interest in the property (H.No. 2113, Sector9-C, Chandigarh) which had been bequeathed by Sh. D. C. Kai th to Sh. Rup Dayal through Will dated 04.02.1997. The said FIR does not in any manner refers to the suit property i.e. E-7/6 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi nor do the statements in FIR impinge upon the due execution of the Will dated 04.02.1997 by Sh. D.C. Kaith. The act of the plaintiff in lodging the FIR does not affect his right in the present Suit property. There is no inconsistency between the claim made in the instant suit by plaintiff ( Partition and Rendition of account etc. of E-7/6 Vasant Vihar New Delhi) and the contents of FIR relating of H. No. 213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh. Copy of FIR is appended herewith as Annexure-P-1. 6. That the contents of para 6 of the application are absolutely wrong and denied. It is wrong that through the statement made by the Plaintiff in the FIR , he has disowned the Will dated 04.02.1997. Copy of FIR is appended herewith as Annexure-P-1. 6. That the contents of para 6 of the application are absolutely wrong and denied. It is wrong that through the statement made by the Plaintiff in the FIR , he has disowned the Will dated 04.02.1997. it is submitted that the same is misconceived interpretation of the contents of said FIR by Applicant, which cannot be made a basis to amend the written statement. Hence present application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 7. That the contents of para 7 of are wrong and denied. It is wrong that the plaintiff got a collusive suit filed in the court of Civil Judge, Chandigarh from his wife Smt. Madhu Dayal as guardian of their minor son. The said suit was filed by the wife of the plaintiff as guardian of their minor son in her own right. The averments made in that suit by the wife of the Plaintiff do not bind the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. The suit by the wife of the Plaintiff, on behalf of the minor son pertains only to the house at Chandigarh i.e. H. No. 213, Sector 9c, Chandigarh and makes no mention of the suit property E-7/6 Vasant Vihar New Delhi. Moreover the wife of the plaintiff was not even a party to the Civil Suit wherein the execution and validity of Will dated 04.02.1997 has been upheld and which has become final between the parties. The suit filed by the wife of the plaintiff does not depict the stand of the plaintiff as claimed by the applicant. The averments in the suit are as per the perception of the Applicant therein. Needless to say that Mrs. Madhu Dayal is a practicing advocate of standing in her own right. She was also Additional Advocate General Punjab and therefore, it cannot be said that she was acting at the behest of the plaintiff as alleged. The plaintiff has been arrayed as defendant and not pe,jorma defendant in the Memo of Parties The said suit filed by the plaintiff''s wife was dismissed as withdrawn on 11''" May 2011 even before the written statement by all the defendants (including the applicant) could be filed. The plaintiff had filed no written statement in the said suit. The plaintiff has been arrayed as defendant and not pe,jorma defendant in the Memo of Parties The said suit filed by the plaintiff''s wife was dismissed as withdrawn on 11''" May 2011 even before the written statement by all the defendants (including the applicant) could be filed. The plaintiff had filed no written statement in the said suit. It is wrong to state that the Civil Suit filed by the wife of the plaintiff on behalf of the minor son makes the plaintiff in total departure from his stands in the instant suit. Firstly, the plaintiff is not even remotely privy to the averments made in the plaint by his wife nor can the averments made in the suit result in upsetting the finality of the Will dated 04.12.1997 as adjudicated by a competent court of law." 12. It is the avowed contention of the petitioner that thus the petitioner had made no mention in relation to the property bearing No.E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi i.e. property in question in relation to CS No.56158/2016 which was filed by the present petitioner and that the petitioner herein has categorically thus denied the disowning of the document dated 04.02.1997 i.e. will by his late father. The petitioner also submitted that the averment in FIR No.13/2011 registered at PS 03, Chandigarh dated 24.01.2011 lodged at Chandigarh was in relation to the property situated at H.No.213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh and did not relate to the property in suit in CS No.56158/2016 situated at Delhi. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner as averred in the present review petition also to the effect: "17. That the contents of the FIR do not pertain to the property which is subject matter of the Suit from which the present proceedings arise. However, even if such contents were brought forth before the Court, the contents thereof remain to be examined before the appropriate forum i.e. the Ld. Trial Court. The observations of this Court, as contained in paragraph 20 would pre-empt an independent finding by the Ld. Trial Court." 13. The petitioner also submits that there is no inconsistency with the pleadings and the stand taken by the petitioner before the learned trial Court nor with the contents of the FIR. 14. Trial Court. The observations of this Court, as contained in paragraph 20 would pre-empt an independent finding by the Ld. Trial Court." 13. The petitioner also submits that there is no inconsistency with the pleadings and the stand taken by the petitioner before the learned trial Court nor with the contents of the FIR. 14. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdicts in Suraj Pal v. Ram Manorath, (2017) 14 SCC 862 , Krishan Nanda Shuka v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad, (2019) 14 SCC 365 , CEE Ltd. v. Bharat Bijlee Ltd., 2011 12 SCC 172 , Nandi Investment & Enterprises v. LM Saravamangala, (2005) 9 SCC 754 , BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741 to contend to the effect that in as much as the petitioner had not stated in the FIR No.13/2011 registered at PS 03, Chandigarh in relation to the property in suit in CS No.56158/2016 situated at New Delhi, it could not be inferred that the petitioner had disowned the will dated 04.02.1997 in relation to the property in suit in CS No.56158/2016 by lodging of the FIR at Chandigarh in relation to the property bearing H.No.213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh claiming the same to be ancestral property. 15. It has been submitted reiterated on behalf of the petitioner that the execution or validity of the will dated 04.02.1997 executed by late Shri DC Kaith has already been pronounced by the Court in an inter party litigation which has since assumed finality and it is submitted that the averments made in the suit filed by the wife Smt. Madhu Dayal as guardian of the minor son of the petitioner and Smt. Madhu Dayal in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chandigarh do not bind the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein in any manner and in any event the averments made by the wife of the petitioner in the suit filed by her on behalf of the minor son relate only to the house at Chandigarh i.e. H.No.213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh and make no mention of the suit property i.e. E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. 16. 16. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent no.2 on the verdicts in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715 , Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 , Lili Thomas and Others VS. Union of India and Others, (2000) 6 SCC 224 to contend to the effect that there was no infirmity whatsoever nor any error apparent on the face of the record in observations in para 20 of the order judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018. 17. It was further the avowed contention on behalf of the respondent no.2 by learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 to the effect that the contents of the will dated 04.02.1997 of late Shri DC Kaith read to the effect: "I, Dayal Chand Kaith, S/o Late Laila Ganga Ram aged 91 years, resident of House no. 213, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh hereby revoke all my former testimonies and dispositions and WILL made by me on 9th August, 1996 registered at Serial No. 1715, Book No.3, Volume No.228, page No.44, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh and my earlier separate WILL in respect of House No.E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057, executed/Registered at New Delhi, and declare this as my LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT and devise that all my self, acquired property moveable and immoveable as indicated below be divided and distributed according to the following instructions - 1.My family consists of my wife Mrs. Vimla Kaith aged about 82 years, who is currently residing with me, my daughter Mrs. Aruna Malhotra, wife of Arjun raj Malhotra, currently residing at E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, my son Mr. Rup Dayal presently residing at House No. 213, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, and my youngest son Basant Dayal who is staying in USA for the last 27 years. 2. I appoint my elder son Mr. Rup Dayal as the sole Executor of this my LAST WILL. 3. I am possessed of the following self-acquired property and assets which are my absolute property out of my personal savings and no part of which has ben inherited by me from my father or mother. 2. I appoint my elder son Mr. Rup Dayal as the sole Executor of this my LAST WILL. 3. I am possessed of the following self-acquired property and assets which are my absolute property out of my personal savings and no part of which has ben inherited by me from my father or mother. This WILL is presented for its registration in the office of Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh by Shri Dayal Chand Kaith s/o Late Lalla Ganga Ram aged 91 years, occupation.........., Resident of House No.213, Sector-9C, Chandigarh in the hours between 3 pm to 5 pm. Presentor Sub-Registrar Chandigarh The Executant of this WILL admits its due execution and its contents to be true and correct. The executant is identified, to my satisfaction by: Both the witnesses are known to each other and the witness no.1 is personally known to me. Executant Sub-Registrar Chandigarh Witness No.1 Witness No.2 A) IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY: 1. House No.212, Sector 9C, Chandigarh. 2. One half share in house no.E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. B) MOVEABLE PROPERTY; 1. Pension Savings Account No. 5400 with Punjab National Bank, Sector 17,Chandigarh. 2. Two Tiger Skins and One Leopard Skin. 4. I hereby direct that all -my moveable and Immoveable properties, after my death should be distributed in the following manner:- 4,1 I leave and bequeath.my House No. 213, Sector 9-c, Chandigarh to my elder son Mr. Rup Dayal who has been looking after my welfare for more than 25 years with a stipulation that my wife Mrs. Vimla Kaith shall, continue to stay in this house throughout her liftime and my son Rup dayal shall provide, for the maintenance in her old age. 4.2 I leave and bequeath lay one half share in House .Ko. e-7/6, Vasant vlhar. Hew Delhi to my son Basant Dayal residing in USA and my grand son Chetan Dayal s/o Rup Dayal, my elder son, in equal shares. 4.3 Balance in my Pension Savings Account No.5400, with Punjab National Bank, sector 17. Chandigarh shall pass on to my wife Mrs. Vimla Kaith absolutely 4.4 I leave and bequeath the two Tiger skins to my grand son namely Chetan Payal and Dhruv Dayai and Leopard skin to my grand daughter Anamika Dayal. In witness whereof I, the said Dayal Chand Kaith have hereto signed at Chandigarh this 4th day of February, 1997 in the presence of witnesses. Vimla Kaith absolutely 4.4 I leave and bequeath the two Tiger skins to my grand son namely Chetan Payal and Dhruv Dayai and Leopard skin to my grand daughter Anamika Dayal. In witness whereof I, the said Dayal Chand Kaith have hereto signed at Chandigarh this 4th day of February, 1997 in the presence of witnesses. TESTATOR ____SD________ Signed by the said Testator as his last WILL in the presence of us present at the same time, who at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other have subscribed our name as witnesses." Sd/- TESTATOR" and that as per the said will vide para 3 thereof it had been categorically stated by the testator that the properties detailed therein were his absolute property acquired out of his personal saving and no part of the same had been inherited by him from his father or mother. 18. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner''s contention in FIR No.13/2011 registered at PS 03, Chandigarh were to the effect that property at H.No.213, Sector 9C, Chandigarh was an ancestral property and that the contents of the will dated 04.02.1997 were thus in a way challenged by the petitioner in as much as the property at E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi falls within the ambit of the same will, the respondent was entitled to seek the prayer seeking an amendment in the written statement that had been filed in CS No.56158/2016 which had been rightly allowed by the learned trial Court. 19. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 that clauses of the will dated 04.02.1997 of late Shri DC Kaith cannot be read in isolation and when the petitioner has sought virtually to challenge the will dated 04.02.1997 by lodging an FIR bearing FIR No.13/2011 registered at PS 03, Chandigarh claiming that the property mentioned at clause 4.1 left to Shri Rup Dayal was in fact an ancestral property, the respondents were entitled to contend as contended by them that the petitioner had sought to take different stands in different proceedings qua the will dated 04.02.1997 stated to have been executed by late Shri DC Kaith. 20. 20. On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side and on a perusal of the record, the Court is of the considered view that the observations in para 20 of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018 suffer from no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor does there exist any sufficient reason to grant review of the observations in the judgment dated 01.07.2020 which relate to the aspect of the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner as plaintiff of CS No.56158/2016 bearing initial no. CS (OS) No.2318/2006 which are sought to be challenged by the respondent nos.2 (now represented by his legal heirs) as arrayed to the CM (M) 828/2018. There exists no ground thus for review of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018. 21. However, in view of the submissions that have been made in paras 16 & 17 of the review petition dated 29.07.2020, it is directed further as under: "Nothing stated in the order dated 01.07.2020 shall affect the merits or demerits of the trial and submissions made in CS No.56158/2016 pending before the learned trial Court." 22. The review petition is disposed in terms of the observations hereinabove in para 21.