IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 507 of 2016 Date of decision : 24.3.2025. Sardari Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Jagiro Devi & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): Heard. 2. Respondents No.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 91/1 of 2008, pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nahan. Petitioner herein is one of the defendants in the said suit being defendant No.1. 3. The dispute in the suit is with respect to inheritance of estate of late Sh. Mangu Ram. Whereas, the plaintiffs have sought declaration to inherit the estate of late Sh. Mangu Ram on the basis of his Will dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 9.12.1987, defendant No.1 has propounded a subsequent Will of Sh. Mangu Ram dated 29.5.2001. 4. After defendant No.1 concluded her evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application before the learned trial court under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, seeking permission of the Court to examine one of the attesting witnesses of Will dated 29.5.2001 in rebuttal. Learned trial Court allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs vide impugned order. Hence this petition. 5. Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have propounded two separate Wills of late Sh. Mangu Ram. The burden to prove valid execution of the Will is always on the party, who propounds the same. Thus, the burden to prove Will dated 29.5.2001 is on defendant No.1. While leading evidence, defendant No.1 has examined one of the attesting witnesses of Will dated 29.5.2001 as her witness. That being so, the other side i.e. plaintiffs have a right to rebut the evidence led by defendant No.1. In such view of the matter, the plaintiffs have a right to produce oral as well as documentary evidence relevant to the issue. Since the prayer of the plaintiffs is to examine the other -3- attesting witnesses of Will dated 29.5.2001, it cannot be said that evidence sought to be produced was not relevant to the issue. 6. Defendant No.1 cannot take any exception to such right of the plaintiffs, which already exists. 7. In result, no ground for interference in the impugned order is warranted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 21.4.2025. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 24th March, 2025 (kck)