- (1.) The present revision petition is directed against order dated 3.12.2003 vide which an application filed by the plaintiffs for comparing the thumb impression of Kamaljit Kaur defendant No. 1 with that of Manjit Kaur wife of Balbir Singh existing on the sale deed dated 17.6.1996 has been declined. The relevant facts are that the petitioners, who are plaintiffs, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of a will dated 8.2.1990 executed by Balwinder Singh. One Kamaljit Kaur was impleaded as defendant No. 1 who was allegedly married to said Balwinder Singh.
(2.) Prior to the filing of this application, the plaintiffs have raised a contention that Kamaljit Kaur had married one Balbir Singh son of Ujjagar Singh after changing her name as Manjit Kaur. The plaintiffs had initially therefore moved an application for amendment of the plaint to plead the aforesaid fact that Kamaljit Kaur widow of Balwinder Singh had re-married and was living with one Balbir Singh. The application for amendment was disallowed by the trial Court.
(3.) A revision petition was filed by the plaintiffs in this Court being Civil Revision No. 3673 of 1999. The plea for amendment was not accepted. However, the revision was disposed of with the following directions: The contention raised by Mr. Jasbir Singh, could not be controverted by learned Counsel for the respondents. In view of this Court as well, the petitioner should have been permitted to lead evidence with regard to re-marriage of Kamaljit Kaur and her living with Balbir Singh. This object could not achieved even without amending the plaint inasmuch as the fact aforesaid can lend support to validity of the will, onus whereof is naturally on the petitioner. The Court is given to understand that original pleadings made in the plaint with regard to desertion of Balwinder Singh by his wife during the life time of former have since been sought to be substantiated by leading evidence. If that be so, naturally, the factum of Kamaljit Kaur remarrying after demise of Balwinder Singh would be in support of original pleadings only. It is to this extent, therefore, that interfere in the impugned order has become necessary. In view of what has been said above, the order under revision is modified to say that the petitioner would be allowed one opportunity to lead evidence on the point mentioned above, to which respondent widow would naturally be given chance to rebut. In the interest of justice as well, this limited interference is required in the impugned order. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of.;