CR-5631-2025 (O& IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Harjit Kaur Kulwinder Singh @ CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for s produce her evidence prior to the evidence of the plaintiff was allowed. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration one-fourth share each along with the defendants in the estate left behind by deceased Kuldeep Singh, and also for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. The claim was based on natural inheritance. The defen the suit by filing written statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs in the estate of Kuldeep Singh. It was the specific stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no concern with the estate as the plaintiffs are not legal heirs Singh. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Kulwinder Singh @ Kala & Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 101 of the Indian , 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) for directing the defendant/petitioner to produce her evidence prior to the evidence of the plaintiff was allowed. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they are entitled to fourth share each along with the defendants in the estate left behind by deceased Kuldeep Singh, and also for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. The claim was based on natural inheritance. The defen the suit by filing written statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs in the estate of Kuldeep Singh. It was the specific stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no concern with the estate as the plaintiffs are not legal heirs -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5631-2025 (O&M) Decided on :-21.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 101 of the Indian for directing the defendant/petitioner to produce her evidence prior to the evidence of the plaintiff was allowed. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that to the effect that they are entitled to fourth share each along with the defendants in the estate left behind by deceased Kuldeep Singh, and also for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. The claim was based on natural inheritance. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs in the estate of Kuldeep Singh. It was the specific stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no concern with the estate as the plaintiffs are not legal heirs of Kuldeep - Present revision petition has been directed against the order dated whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 101 of the Indian for directing the defendant/petitioner to The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that to the effect that they are entitled to fourth share each along with the defendants in the estate left behind by deceased Kuldeep Singh, and also for rendition of accounts and permanent dants contested the suit by filing written statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs in the estate of Kuldeep Singh. It was the specific stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs of Kuldeep TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5631-2025 (O& 3. On the basis of rival pleadings, 20.03.2023:- 1) prayed for? OPP 2) injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3) standi and 4) facts? OPD 5) fee? OPD 6) 4. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved and decided. In those proceedings, the defendants made a submission that late Kuldeep Singh had executed a Will dated 20.06.2017 in their favour. The stay applica appeal against that order also failed. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for the plaintiffs, when Evidence Act seeking a direction that the de since they had set up the Will. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties the defendants were setting up a Will dated 20.06.2017 in prove the same would be on them and, therefore, they should be called upon to lead evidence first. (O&M) On the basis of rival pleadings, Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP Whether the present suit not maintainable for want of locus standi and cause of action? OPD Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of concealment of material facts? OPD Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purp fee? OPD Relief. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved and decided. In those proceedings, the defendants made a submission that late Kuldeep Singh had executed a Will dated 20.06.2017 in their favour. The stay application filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and appeal against that order also failed. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for when they moved an application under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking a direction that the defendants should lead evidence first since they had set up the Will. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, allowed the said application on 19.07.2025 holding that as the defendants were setting up a Will dated 20.06.2017 in prove the same would be on them and, therefore, they should be called upon to lead evidence first. -2- following issues were framed Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration, as Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent Whether the present suit not maintainable for want of locus Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of concealment of material properly valued for the purpose of court During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved and decided. In those proceedings, the defendants made a submission that late Kuldeep Singh had executed a Will dated 20.06.2017 tion filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and appeal against that order also failed. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for evidence of moved an application under Section 101 of the Indian fendants should lead evidence first since they had set up the Will. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned , allowed the said application on 19.07.2025 holding that as the defendants were setting up a Will dated 20.06.2017 in their favour, the onus to prove the same would be on them and, therefore, they should be called upon to - on Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration, as Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent Whether the present suit not maintainable for want of locus Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of concealment of material of court During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved and decided. In those proceedings, the defendants made a submission that late Kuldeep Singh had executed a Will dated 20.06.2017 tion filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and evidence of moved an application under Section 101 of the Indian fendants should lead evidence first learned , allowed the said application on 19.07.2025 holding that as their favour, the onus to prove the same would be on them and, therefore, they should be called upon to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5631-2025 (O& 5. The present revision has been filed challenging the said order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the gone through the pleadings, record and the impugned order. 7. On perusal of statement and replication, any Will by Kuldeep Sin primarily denied the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs and asserted that the plaintiffs had no concern with the estate. It is only during the arguments on the injunction application that a submiss any specific plea of Will incorporated in the written statement nor has any issue been framed in relation to its execution or validity. of pleadings of the parties as envisaged un specific issue is framed, no party can be compelled to lead evidence on such matter. 8. Further, as per the settled procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, it is always the plaintiff who is required to lead evidence of the issues framed on which the onus lies upon him. Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC makes it clear that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that the plaintiff is not en relief. In the present case, the onus of proof on issues No.1 and 2 clearly lies upon the plaintiffs as they claim declaration of their rights in the estate of Kuldeep Singh on the basis of inheritance. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to box first and discharge the onus. Only thereafter can the defendants be called upon to lead their evidence. (O&M) The present revision has been filed challenging the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the gone through the pleadings, record and the impugned order. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, i.e. the plaint, written statement and replication, it is clear that no categorical plea regarding execution of any Will by Kuldeep Singh was taken in the written statement. The defendants primarily denied the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs and asserted that the plaintiffs had no concern with the estate. It is only during the arguments on the injunction application that a submission regarding Will was made. Neither any specific plea of Will incorporated in the written statement nor has any issue been framed in relation to its execution or validity. of pleadings of the parties as envisaged under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC. Unless a specific issue is framed, no party can be compelled to lead evidence on such Further, as per the settled procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, it is always the plaintiff who is required to lead evidence of the issues framed on which the onus lies upon him. Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC makes it clear that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that the plaintiff is not en relief. In the present case, the onus of proof on issues No.1 and 2 clearly lies upon the plaintiffs as they claim declaration of their rights in the estate of Kuldeep Singh on the basis of inheritance. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to box first and discharge the onus. Only thereafter can the defendants be called upon to lead their evidence. -3- The present revision has been filed challenging the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and carefully gone through the pleadings, record and the impugned order. the pleadings of the parties, i.e. the plaint, written it is clear that no categorical plea regarding execution of gh was taken in the written statement. The defendants primarily denied the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs and asserted that the plaintiffs had no concern with the estate. It is only during the arguments on the ion regarding Will was made. Neither there is any specific plea of Will incorporated in the written statement nor has any issue been framed in relation to its execution or validity. Issues are framed on the basis der Order XIV Rule 1 CPC. Unless a specific issue is framed, no party can be compelled to lead evidence on such Further, as per the settled procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, it is always the plaintiff who is required to lead evidence first in support of the issues framed on which the onus lies upon him. Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC makes it clear that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. In the present case, the onus of proof on issues No.1 and 2 clearly lies upon the plaintiffs as they claim declaration of their rights in the estate of Kuldeep Singh on the basis of inheritance. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to enter the witness box first and discharge the onus. Only thereafter can the defendants be called upon - and carefully the pleadings of the parties, i.e. the plaint, written it is clear that no categorical plea regarding execution of gh was taken in the written statement. The defendants primarily denied the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs and asserted that the plaintiffs had no concern with the estate. It is only during the arguments on the there is any specific plea of Will incorporated in the written statement nor has any issue are framed on the basis der Order XIV Rule 1 CPC. Unless a specific issue is framed, no party can be compelled to lead evidence on such Further, as per the settled procedure under the Code of Civil first in support of the issues framed on which the onus lies upon him. Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC makes it clear that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits titled to any relief. In the present case, the onus of proof on issues No.1 and 2 clearly lies upon the plaintiffs as they claim declaration of their rights in the estate of Kuldeep Singh enter the witness box first and discharge the onus. Only thereafter can the defendants be called upon TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5631-2025 (O& 9. The trial Court has fallen in error in allowing the application of the plaintiffs by misreading the pleadings. The mere fact t interim injunction defendants made reference to a Will alter the procedure of evidence unless such plea forms part of the pleadings and a specific issue is framed. No application for framing additional is either side and no such issue has been framed by the Court of its own. In the absence of an issue regarding Will, the question of directing the defendants to lead evidence first on the issue of Will, 10. Consequently, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside. The trial Court is with the matter in accordance with law by calling upo evidence first, thereafter affording opportunity to the defendants to adduce their evidence, in terms of Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC. 11. Revision petition is accordingly allowed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. August 21, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) The trial Court has fallen in error in allowing the application of the plaintiffs by misreading the pleadings. The mere fact t interim injunction defendants made reference to a Will alter the procedure of evidence unless such plea forms part of the pleadings and a specific issue is framed. No application for framing additional is either side and no such issue has been framed by the Court of its own. In the absence of an issue regarding Will, the question of directing the defendants to lead on the issue of Will, does not arise. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside. The trial Court is with the matter in accordance with law by calling upo evidence first, thereafter affording opportunity to the defendants to adduce their evidence, in terms of Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC. Revision petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- The trial Court has fallen in error in allowing the application of the plaintiffs by misreading the pleadings. The mere fact that during arguments on interim injunction defendants made reference to a Will, cannot shift the burden or alter the procedure of evidence unless such plea forms part of the pleadings and a specific issue is framed. No application for framing additional issue was moved by either side and no such issue has been framed by the Court of its own. In the absence of an issue regarding Will, the question of directing the defendants to lead does not arise. impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Amritsar is patently illegal and unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside. The trial Court is requested to proceed with the matter in accordance with law by calling upon the plaintiffs to lead their evidence first, thereafter affording opportunity to the defendants to adduce their Revision petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - The trial Court has fallen in error in allowing the application of the hat during arguments on cannot shift the burden or alter the procedure of evidence unless such plea forms part of the pleadings and a sue was moved by either side and no such issue has been framed by the Court of its own. In the absence of an issue regarding Will, the question of directing the defendants to lead impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the is patently illegal and to proceed n the plaintiffs to lead their evidence first, thereafter affording opportunity to the defendants to adduce their TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document