Full Text
Translation output
A-42
% 14.9.2011
Present: Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 17099/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M)No. 1063/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M)No.l063/2011 & CM No.17098/2011 (for stay)
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 16.8.2011 vide which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the witness of the objector RW-1 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code had been dismissed. The present petition is a probate petition seeking probate of the will of the deceased Balbir Singh. The petitioners are the sons of the deceased and respondent/objector Premwati is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. Record shows that the evidence had been concluded on
03.5.2011; matter had been fixed for arguments on 22.5.2011. Written submissions had been filed on 28.5.2011 and the matter had been reserved for
% 14.9.2011
Present: Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No. 17099/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M)No. 1063/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M)No.l063/2011 & CM No.17098/2011 (for stay)
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 16.8.2011 vide which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the witness of the objector RW-1 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code had been dismissed. The present petition is a probate petition seeking probate of the will of the deceased Balbir Singh. The petitioners are the sons of the deceased and respondent/objector Premwati is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. Record shows that the evidence had been concluded on
03.5.2011; matter had been fixed for arguments on 22.5.2011. Written submissions had been filed on 28.5.2011 and the matter had been reserved for
JUDGMENT
. Thereafter the present application was filed on
06.7.2011. The contention is that the in the course of the cross- examination of the witness of the objector namely Premwati a suggestion has been given to her that the testator Balbir Singh had suffered a hip fracture in the year 1996 but due to a typographical error it has been noted as year 1993; it is necessary to recall the witness for the said purpose. This contention was objected to; the vehement contention of the objector in the reply was that this application has been filed malafide as this is an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the deposition of the said witness.
2011:DHC:19482
2011:DHC:19482
06.7.2011. The contention is that the in the course of the cross- examination of the witness of the objector namely Premwati a suggestion has been given to her that the testator Balbir Singh had suffered a hip fracture in the year 1996 but due to a typographical error it has been noted as year 1993; it is necessary to recall the witness for the said purpose. This contention was objected to; the vehement contention of the objector in the reply was that this application has been filed malafide as this is an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the deposition of the said witness.
2011:DHC:19482
2011:DHC:19482