Vijender Singh Malik, J. - (1.) DAVINDER Kumar Goswami and Smt. Anuradha Goswami, defendants No. 1 and 2 have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby the application of the plaintiff, Smt. Parkash Sharma for leading evidence in rebuttal has been allowed.
(2.) SMT . Parkash Sharma sought by way of her suit reliefs of declaration, rendition of account and injunction in both permanent and mandatory form against the defendants. She claimed to be an heir of Smt. Sneh Prabha regarding the amounts received by her on the death of her husband Sh. Bishamber Nath Sharma, which were deposited with defendants No. 4 to 13. Defendants No. 1 and 2 besides filing written statement to the claim of Smt. Parkash Sharma had filed a counter claim in which they claimed that Smt. Sneh Prabha, who happened to be sister of defendant No. 1, executed a valid Will on 20.3.2005 in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid dues. It is in this suit, the plaintiff applied for permission to examine handwriting expert and for that purpose sought permission to allow photographs to be taken of the disputed signatures of Sneh Prabha on the alleged Will as well as her admitted signatures from the documents available on the record. In the said application, it is claimed that the plaintiff had challenged the said Will in her written statement filed to the counter claim of defendants No. 1 and 2 and for this reason, she wanted to examine the handwriting expert. The application was opposed by defendants No. 1 and 2. They have claimed that the plaintiff has assailed the Will in question as forged one. According to them, she had the right to lead evidence on that issue in her affirmative evidence and she had no right to lead evidence in rebuttal.
(3.) HEARING learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court allowed the application vide order dated 5.9.2011 and this order has been challenged by way of this revision petition.;