Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 7.6.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby the application dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) filed by them for leading additional evidence was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the plaintiffs filed suit for a decree of joint possession of the suit land and for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the same. Defendant No.1 claims himself as adopted son of Niranjan Singh whereas defendant No.2 is wife of defendant No.1. The defendants filed written statement disputing the relationship of the plaintiffs with Surjan Singh son of Niranjan Singh. They also disputed that the plaintiffs are daughters of Surjan Singh son of Niranjan Singh. Further, the defendants had denied that Gurnam Kaur was grandmother of the plaintiffs and wife of Niranjan Singh. Thereafter, the issues were framed. The plaintiffs led their evidence. When the evidence of the defendants started, the plaintiffs found one registered Will dated 14.5.1964 executed in favour of Surjan Singh son of Niranjan Singh by his maternal grandfather Harnam Singh and one another registered Will dated 9.4.1996 executed in favour of the plaintiffs by their grandmother Smt. Gurnam Kaur and copy of order dated 26.7.1961 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide which the property of Niranjan Singh was attached in maintenance case filed by his wife Gurnam Kaur. Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application for leading additional evidence to prove the said two registered Wills, the order dated 26.7.1961 and the jamabandi for the year 1992-93. The said application was contested by the defendants by filing reply alleging therein that the said application was filed by the plaintiffs only to delay the disposal of the suit and to harass the defendants. The trial court vide order dated 22.4.2010 dismissed the said application against which CR No. 4473 of 2010 was filed in this Court. This Court while setting aside the said order on 25.3.2011 had remanded the case to the trial court for deciding the application afresh as it was noticed that the earlier application was primarily dismissed on the ground of delay. The trial court after hearing the arguments did not find any merit in the application for additional evidence and dismissed the same vide order dated 7.6.2011. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.;