Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangat Ram (Since Deceased) ... vs Harbans Lal And Others on 9 January, 2023
C.R. No. 67 of 2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 67 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.1.2023
...
Mangat Ram (since deceased) through his legal heir
Karamjit Kaur
................Petitioner
vs.
Harbans Lal and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. Under challenge in this revision petition is order dated
1.12.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Malerkotla, vide which an application filed by plaintiff for directing
the defendants No. 1 and 3 to place on record alleged original Will
dated 17.9.2005, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Manohar
Lal alongwith his brother Mangat Ram, since dead, now represented
by his legal heirs, had brought a suit against their brother Harbans
Lal, another brother Tarsem Lal -since dead, now represented by his
legal heirs and others, seeking a declaration that the parties are joint
owners in possession in equal share of property bearing plot No. 24,
1 of 5
measuring 312-4/9 sq.yards having construction situated at
Malerkotla, besides craving for separate possession by way of
partition of suit property and grant of permanent injunction.
3. According to the plaintiffs, Sh. Lal Singh, grandfather of
the plaintiffs and defendants had two sons, namely, Raunak Ram @
Raunaki Ram and Kasturi Lal. The suit property was earlier owned
and possessed by Raunak Ram @ Raunaki Ram, real uncle of
plaintiffs and defendants. Raunak Ram @ Raunaki Ram died
unmarried and issueless on 20.8.2006 and after his death the parties
inherited his estate, becoming co-owners in joint possession of the
suit property.
4. On getting notice of the suit, defendants appeared.
Defendant No. 1 and 3 filed a written statement contending that the
estate of Raunak Ram @ Raunaki Ram is not to go by natural
succession, since Raunak Ram @ Raunaki Ram during his life time
had executed a Will dated 17.9.2005, in favour of defendants No. 1
and 3. The parties being at issue, went on trial. During the course of
proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an application for directing
defendants No. 1 and 3 to place on record the alleged original Will
dated 17.9.2005, since copy of that Will had been filed by defendants
No. 1 and 3, but not the original. Plaintiff No. 1 had filed a criminal
complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC against defendants No. 1
and 3, which is pending and the original Will is necessary to be got
examined from a finger print expert. That application was opposed by
defendants No. 1 and 3 contending that earlier also the plaintiffs had
2 of 5
filed an application dated 1.12.2021 to place on record Will dated
17.9.2005. Defendants No. 1 and 3 accordingly did so and it was
inspected by the plaintiffs and copy of the Will was placed on file.
Thereafter, the application was disposed of vide order dated
26.10.2021. The plaintiffs have filed a similar application again,
which is not maintainable, therefore, it be dismissed.
5. After hearing the counsel, learned trial Court vide
impugned order dated 1.12.2022, dismissed the application. The
operative part of the order, for ready reference is reproduced as
under :-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the case file
carefully. Perusal of file reveals that on 1/2/2021
the plaintiff has also filed an application for
placing on file the original will dated 17/9/2005
and vide order dated 26/10/2021, the said
application had already been disposed of. The
present application has been filed by the plaintiff
on the same ground for placing on record the
original will dated 17/9/2005 as the plaintiff
wants to examine the witness in a complaint
case regarding the said will. On the other hand,
the defendants have stated that they have no
knowledge about any complaint as alleged by
the plaintiff. The present application has been
3 of 5
filed by the plaintiff after a gap of more than 1 ½
years since the date of earlier application on the
same cause of action and same has been filed
just to delay the proceedings of present case.
This Court does not find any merits in the
present application and same is hereby
dismissed"
6. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist -
petitioner, besides going through the record, I do not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned order. On a similar application having
been filed by the plaintiff on 1.12.2021, the original Will was
produced and the same is stated to have been inspected by the
plaintiffs, as mentioned in para No. 2 of the order. No justification for
filing similar application after a lapse of 1 -1/2 years thereof, is
shown to have been given. The plaintiffs at their whims and fancies
cannot file repeated applications on a similar point without
explaining the justification for the same.
7. Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner has referred to
judgments K.S. Raina and another vs. Haryana Financial
Corporation and another 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 129 and Hari
Mohan Singha and others vs. Tamalai Sinha and others 2020 AIR
(Gauhati) 79, in support of his contentions. I do not find those
judgments to be applicable to the present case. The plaintiffs had
already availed of opportunity of inspecting the original Will and
without any justifiable reason, they cannot seek repeated production
4 of 5
of original Will in such a manner.
8. I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the
impugned order or reason to interfere therewith.
9. There is no merit in the revision petition. The same
stands dismissed accordingly.
( H.S. Madaan )
9.1.2023 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
