Dalbir Kaur vs Kulwinder Singh and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.—The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.5.2012 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant seeks one opportunity to lead additional evidence for comparison of the thumb impression of Ajit Singh on the Will dated 27.4.2004.

Having examined the impugned order and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to grant opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead additional evidence. The delay in adjudication of the matter could be compensated with costs.

Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner-defendant is granted three months time to conclude the evidence subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs. This petition is allowed without serving notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order.