Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Kaur Pawar vs Satinder Singh And Others on 3 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No. 7921 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CR No. 7921 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.02.2014
Harinder Kaur Pawar ......Petitioner
Versus
Satinder Singh and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr.D.S.Malwai,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Jindal,Advocat for
respondent No.1
None for respondent No.2
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 2.12.2011 (Annexure P3) whereby document Exhibit PW2/B was ordered to be de-exhibited.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Impugned order dated 2.12.2011(Annexure P3) reads as under:-
"Statement of Shri Sanjeev Gupta, Adv.counsel for the defendant No.1 The document stated to be certified copy of probate can not be exhibited. In the statement of PW2, the alleged copy of will allegedly dated 1.10.1997 cannot be exhibited in the statement of PW2 and she is not attesting witness of said Raj Kumari 2014.02.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 7921 of 2011 (O&M) 2 alleged will nor she is signatory. The same is against the provision of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1963 and against Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and moreover the original alleged will has not been produced nor any permission u/s 65 of evidence act has been taken. The copy of statutory declaration alleged to be of Hardeep Kaur Grewal and Surinder Singh Grewal cannot be tendered and exhibited and PW2 is not a signatory to the said document nor she is signatory to the said documents of documents Ex.PW2/D to Ex.PW2/G. "Objection allowed. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is directed to de-exhibited the documents Ex.PW2/B only it be treated as a mark."
Annexure P2 dated 15.5.2007 is the order passed by the Queen's Bench of Alberta (Surrogate matter), Judicial District of Edmonton whereby probate of Will dated 1.10.1997 executed by Mohinder Kaur Grewal was granted. Order Exhibit P2 as well as Will in question were exhibited during the examination of PW2. However, later, vide impugned order dated 2.12.2011(Annexure P3), Will Exhibit PW2/B was ordered to be de-exhibited.
Learned trial Court erred in de-exhibiting the Will in question as the same had been allowed to be exhibited when PW2 was examined. Since the Will had been allowed to be exhibited, during the examination of PW2, then the evidentiary value of the Will could have been gone into at the time of final disposal of the case Raj Kumari but the same could not have been de-exhibited while the evidence of 2014.02.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 7921 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the plaintiff was still going on.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Will in question forms part of order Annexure P2 and,therefore, could not be segregated. So all these aspects can be gone into by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 2.12.2011 (Annexure P3) is set aside. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them at the time of final hearing of the suit.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 29, 2014 arya Raj Kumari 2014.02.05 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document