05.2026 Joginder S nder Singh …..Review A view & Anr. v. Hari Singh Singh & Ors.

Trial Court Court had wrongly placed the onus u onus upon the plaintiffs to prove that the Wi the Will dated 03.05.2000 was forged forged and fabricated, despite the the said Will had been p een propounded by defendant No.1/respo /respondent No.1. It is further conte r contended that the application VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 2 seeking ex ing examination of Handwriting Expe g Expert was wrongly dismissed and that an that an additional issue regarding exec g execution of the Will ought to have been en framed by the learned Trial Co ial Court. Reliance has also been placed upo d upon the judgment of the Hon’bl Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy my vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (11) (11) SCC 275 to contend that additional e ional evidence can be permitted in exe in exercise of inherent powers of the Court ourt even at a later stage if the sam he same is necessary for proper adjudicatio ication of the matter. I have heard learned counsel f nsel for the review-applicant and have carefu carefully perused the review applic application as well as the order sought to b ht to be reviewed. At the outset, it requires to b s to be noticed that the scope of review juri w jurisdiction is extremely limited. A ited. A review petition cannot be treated as a ed as an appeal in disguise. Unless th less there is an error apparent on the face of ace of the record, discovery of new a new and important matter which despite due ite due diligence could not be prod produced earlier, or any other sufficient r cient reason analogous thereto, the ord the order under review cannot be reopened m ened merely because another view i view is possible or because the applicant se cant seeks rehearing of the matter on m er on merits. A perusal of the present revi nt review application shows that the review eview-applicant has virtually sought ought re-argument of the entire matter by er by reiterating the very same subm submissions which had already been consid considered and adjudicated upon by t n by this Court while passing the detailed ord led order dated 25.03.2026. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 3 This Court, while dismissing t ssing the Civil Revision Petitions, had specif specifically noticed that the Will da ill dated 03.05.2000 had been referred to red to by respondent No.1 in the writ e written statement itself and the petitioners ioners had also challenged the sam e same in their replication by alleging it ing it to be forged and fabricated. Co ed. Consequently, issue No.2 had already bee dy been framed on 05.10.2015 in the f n the following terms:- “Whether the Will date dated 03.05.2000 executed by Saran Kaur in favour o ur of defendant No.1 is wrong, forged and fabricated, p ed, procured by defendant No.1 in connivance with witn witnesses? OPP” This Court had further observ observed that once the petitioners themselves selves had specifically pleaded forg d forgery and fabrication of the Will, the b , the burden to substantiate the said p said plea in affirmative evidence was upon upon them. However, no such evid h evidence was led during the affirmative mative evidence of the plaintiffs. tiffs. Rather, after closure of plaintiffs’ tiffs’ evidence on 24.05.2017 and 7 and closure of defendants’ evidence o ence on 22.10.2018, the petitioners mo ers moved applications at the fag end of the of the trial seeking examination of ion of Handwriting Expert and framing of ing of additional issue. For reference, paras 8 and 9 o nd 9 of the order dated 25.3.2026 are reprodu eproduced herein below :- “8. The petitioners ers and performa respondents have filed Civil Suit N it No. 59484 of 2013 seeking declaration plaintiffs p performa respondents are owners ners in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the sui suit land measuring 18K 1M, which was previously i sly in the ownership of Sharan Kaur. The record reve reveals that Issues in the suit VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 4 framed vide o e order dated 05.10.2015; plaintiffs' evidence was was closed on 24.05.2017; and defendants' evidence nce was also closed on

22.10.2018. It is at this t this stage, that the petitioners moved the instant applic pplication dated 13.03.2018 for framing of additional is al issue; and application dated

15.11.2018 for allowin lowing Handwriting Expert to examine signatures of s of Sharan Kaur and Sadhu Singh, Lamberdar. Res Respondents had resisted the applications by filing ling 2 separate replies dated

26.11.2018 to the afo aforesaid applications of the petitioners. Vide impugn pugned order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-3 in CR- -2193-2019), application for examining Handwriti writing Expert rebuttal evidence was dismissed issed; and vide impugned order dated 17.03.2019 (An (Annexure P-4 in CR-2220- 2019), application file filed by the petitioners for framing of additional is al issue was dismissed.

9. From the abov above facts, it is clear that applications have been een moved by the petitioners at fag end of the trial. As a As admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Will Will dated 03.05.2000 had been duly mentioned by th y the respondent No.1 in his written statement to th to the suit. On a Court query, learned counsel for th r the petitioners has admitted that in his replication tion to the suit, petitioner had taken objection that the t the said Will is a forged and fabricated document. A nt. Accordingly, while framing issues vide order dated ated 05.10.2015, learned Trial Court had duly framed ed proper issues, which are as under: - "1. Whether th er the plaintiff and defendant 2 to 12 are re owners and in possession VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 5 the land i nd in dispute to the extent of share? OP OPP 2 Whether the will dated 3.5.2000 executed b ed by Saran Kaur in favour of defendant ant no.1 is wrong, forged and fabricated ted procured by defendant no.1 in c in connivance by witnesses? OPP

3. Whether t er the plaintiff is entitled to consequent uential relief of permanent injunction tion as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether th er the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Relief." The review-applicant has fail as failed to point out any patent illegality o ality or error apparent on the face of ce of the record in the aforesaid findings rec ngs recorded by this Court. The contention now sought to ught to be raised that a separate issue ought ought to have been framed casting on ting onus upon defendant No.1 to prove the e e the execution of the Will, had alrea d already been specifically dealt with in the in the order dated 25.03.2026. This C This Court had categorically held that issue issue No.2 already encompassed t ssed the controversy regarding genuinenes ineness and execution of the Will and ill and that the petitioners could not be perm e permitted at such a belated stage to age to seek reframing or recasting of issues, p sues, particularly when no objection h ction had been raised at the time of framing aming of issues in the year 2015. Even otherwise, merely becau because another issue could also have been f been framed in a different manner wo ner would not constitute a ground VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 6 for review eview of the judgment. Review jur w jurisdiction is not meant for substituting nother. tituting one possible view with another The reliance placed by the the review-applicant upon the judgment in K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra) is also wholly misconceiv onceived. The said judgment only reco recognizes the inherent powers of the Cour e Court in exceptional circumstances. ances. However, exercise of such discretion d etion depends upon the facts of each each case. In the present matter, this Court Court had already considered the d the factual position that the application cations had been moved after closure losure of evidence and at the final stage of tr of trial despite the petitioners bein s being fully aware of the plea regarding t rding the Will since filing of the w the written statement. Thus, no exceptional ptional circumstance warranting interfe interference was found to exist. Significantly, the review app w application does not disclose discovery o very of any new and important matter matter or evidence which was not within the k in the knowledge of the review-applica applicant at the time of passing of the order order dated 25.03.2026. Rather, the r, the entire endeavour of the applicant is cant is only to persuade this Court to t urt to take a different view on the same set of set of facts and submissions already c ready considered earlier, which is impermissi rmissible in review jurisdiction. It is well settled that rehear rehearing of the matter and re- appreciatio eciation of the entire controversy o rsy on merits falls outside the purview of iew of review proceedings. A review eview cannot be allowed merely because the use the applicant is dissatisfied with th with the conclusions arrived at by ourt. the Court. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 7 This Court finds no error ap ror apparent on the face of the record warr rd warranting review of the detailed ord iled order dated 25.03.2026. Accordingly, finding no me o merit in the present review application cation, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 May 15, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document