IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.617 of 2022 Decided on: 09.04.2025 Durma Devi(deceased) through LRs & others ….Petitioners Versus Diwan Chand & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Kuldeeep Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 14.09.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Suit No.85/1 of 2015, whereby the application of the petitioners/defendants under Sections 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are the defendants before the learned trial Court. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration with respect to the suit property on the basis of a Will. He has also challenged the gift executed in favour of the defendants. 3. The plaintiff concluded the evidence in affirmative. At this stage, when the case was listed for the evidence of the 2 defendants, the aforesaid application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act came to be filed. 4. According to the defendants, the signatures of the testator on the Will dated 29.01.1999, propounded by the plaintiff, were not genuine and for such purpose, the defendants wanted an order from learned trial Court for sending the signatures of the testator on the Will for comparison by an expert with the signatures on the gift deed executed by the same person. 5. Learned trial Court has rejected the prayer on the ground that the burden of proving valid execution of Will is on the plaintiff. It was observed that the testator had already died and for such reason his admitted signatures could not be obtained. Learned trial Court further was apprehensive as to genuineness of the signatures of the testator of Will on the gift deed at this stage of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission during the course of hearing that in fact the defendants had already obtained an opinion of the expert on the subject. 6. The Court is having jurisdiction to solicit the opinion of an expert, if the facts of the case so require. The parties are still at the stage of leading evidence. This stage, in my considered 3 view, will be premature for making any adjudication as to requirement of expert opinion by the Court. In any case, since, the defendants have already obtained opinion of an expert, they will always be at liberty to lead evidence to prove such report. 7. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is no error of jurisdiction also. Hence, the interference by this Court under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge April 09, 2025 (vt)