Chander Kanta and Others vs Smt. Parmeshwari and Others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—In a suit for possession of 765 kanals and 19 marlas of land, Petitioners'' prayer for leading additional evidence has been allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned order. The grouse of the Petitioners, however, is that though the said Court has accepted their prayer, yet the conditions which it has imposed for the leading of that evidence practically deprive them of the choice of evidence they want to produce Vide this order Petitioners have been allowed to produce a handwriting expert to prove the disputed will dated December 12, 1973 subject to the payment of Rs. 800/- as costs and the choice of the expert has been restricted to an expert from the Government Finger Print Bureau Phillaur only. It has specifically been mentioned in that order that the "the Plaintiffs shall not be allowed to produce the private expert". The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that firstly, the imposition of costs referred to above makes the order punitive and secondly, the Court could not restrict the choice of their evidence or the selection of the expert whom the Petitioners chose to produce in order to prove the will in question Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties while I find no merit in the first contention of the learned Counsel, the second one deserve to be accepted

Keeping in view the extent of the land involved or the value of the suit property, the costs imposed on the Plaintiffs Petitioners cannot be styled as excessive So far as the restricting of the choice of the Petitioners to the expert from the Government Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, is concerned, the same does net appear to be justified from any angle The learned Counsel for the Respondents is not in a position to refer to any provision of law under which the Court can restrict a party to a particular type of evidence in order to establish its case Further it is not in dispute that the Petitioners had already summoned an expert to prove the said will but somehow his evidence could not be recorded on the day he appeared in Court though the written report prepared by that expert is stated to be on the records of the trial Court In the fare of that the Petitioners cannot be made to pay to an expert over again This, however, does not mean that the Petitioners would not be entitled to produce any other expert than the one who bad been summoned by them earlier.

In the light of the above I set aside that part of the impugned order vide which the choice of the Petitioners has been restricted to an expert from the Government Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur This petition is thus allowed to this extent only. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on November 26, 1985.