IN TH 117 Joginder S Hari Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU the order d connected m by the revie review of t Trial Court that the Wi fact that No.1/respo RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RA-CR-71-2026 Civil Revision No Date of decision nder Singh and another …..Review A Versus Singh and others …..Respond AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Harpal Singh Sirohi, Advo for the review-applicant/petitio HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present application has be rder dated 25.03.2026 passed by this C ected matter, whereby both the Civil R e review-applicant/petitioner came to Learned counsel for the rev w of the aforesaid order primarily on Court had wrongly placed the onus u the Will dated 03.05.2000 was forged that the said Will had been p /respondent No.1. It is further conte 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 2026 in ion No.2193 of 2019 cision :-15.05.2026 view Applicant/Petitioner spondents E NIDHI GUPTA i, Advocate petitioner. has been filed seeking review of this Court in CR-2193-2019 and Civil Revision Petitions preferred me to be dismissed. he review-applicant has sought ily on the ground that the learned onus upon the plaintiffs to prove forged and fabricated, despite the een propounded by defendant r contended that the application VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document seeking ex and that an have been placed upo Velusamy additional e the Court adjudicatio have carefu sought to b review juri treated as a the face of despite due sufficient r reopened m applicant se the review matter by been consid detailed ord RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 ing examination of Handwriting Expe that an additional issue regarding exec en framed by the learned Trial Co d upon the judgment of the Hon’bl my vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (11) ional evidence can be permitted in exe ourt even at a later stage if the sam ication of the matter. I have heard learned counsel f carefully perused the review applic ht to be reviewed. At the outset, it requires to b w jurisdiction is extremely limited. A ed as an appeal in disguise. Unless th ace of the record, discovery of new a ite due diligence could not be prod cient reason analogous thereto, the ord ened merely because another view i cant seeks rehearing of the matter on m A perusal of the present revi eview-applicant has virtually sought er by reiterating the very same subm considered and adjudicated upon by t led order dated 25.03.2026. 2 g Expert was wrongly dismissed g execution of the Will ought to ial Court. Reliance has also been Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. (11) SCC 275 to contend that in exercise of inherent powers of he same is necessary for proper nsel for the review-applicant and application as well as the order s to be noticed that the scope of ited. A review petition cannot be less there is an error apparent on new and important matter which produced earlier, or any other the order under review cannot be view is possible or because the er on merits. nt review application shows that ought re-argument of the entire submissions which had already n by this Court while passing the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document had specif referred to petitioners alleging it already bee themselves Will, the b was upon affirmative plaintiffs’ evidence o end of the framing of are reprodu RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 This Court, while dismissing t specifically noticed that the Will da red to by respondent No.1 in the writ ioners had also challenged the sam ing it to be forged and fabricated. Co dy been framed on 05.10.2015 in the f “Whether the Will date Saran Kaur in favour o forged and fabricated, p in connivance with witn This Court had further observ selves had specifically pleaded forg , the burden to substantiate the said p upon them. However, no such evid mative evidence of the plaintiffs. tiffs’ evidence on 24.05.2017 and ence on 22.10.2018, the petitioners mo of the trial seeking examination of ing of additional issue. For reference, paras 8 and 9 o eproduced herein below :- “8. The petitioners have filed Civil Suit N declaration that p respondents are owners of 1/2 share in the sui which was previously i Kaur. The record reve 3 ssing the Civil Revision Petitions, ill dated 03.05.2000 had been e written statement itself and the e same in their replication by ed. Consequently, issue No.2 had n the following terms:- dated 03.05.2000 executed by ur of defendant No.1 is wrong, ed, procured by defendant No.1 witnesses? OPP” observed that once the petitioners d forgery and fabrication of the said plea in affirmative evidence h evidence was led during the tiffs. Rather, after closure of 7 and closure of defendants’ ers moved applications at the fag ion of Handwriting Expert and nd 9 of the order dated 25.3.2026 ers and performa respondents it No. 59484 of 2013 seeking plaintiffs and performa ners in possession to the extent suit land measuring 18K 1M, sly in the ownership of Sharan reveals that Issues in the suit VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 were framed vide o plaintiffs' evidence was defendants' evidence 22.10.2018. It is at this moved the instant applic framing of additional is 15.11.2018 for allowin examine signatures of Singh, Lamberdar. Res applications by filing 26.11.2018 to the afo petitioners. Vide impugn (Annexure P-3 in CR- examining Handwriti evidence was dismissed dated 17.03.2019 (An 2019), application file framing of additional is 9. From the abov applications have been fag end of the trial. As a for the petitioners, Will duly mentioned by th written statement to th learned counsel for th that in his replication taken objection that the fabricated document. A issues vide order dated Court had duly framed under: - "1. Whether th to 12 are 4 e order dated 05.10.2015; was closed on 24.05.2017; and nce was also closed on t this stage, that the petitioners pplication dated 13.03.2018 for al issue; and application dated lowing Handwriting Expert to s of Sharan Kaur and Sadhu Respondents had resisted the ling 2 separate replies dated aforesaid applications of the pugned order dated 20.12.2018 -2193-2019), application for writing Expert in rebuttal issed; and vide impugned order (Annexure P-4 in CR-2220- filed by the petitioners for al issue was dismissed. above facts, it is clear that een moved by the petitioners at As admitted by learned counsel Will dated 03.05.2000 had been y the respondent No.1 in his to the suit. On a Court query, r the petitioners has admitted tion to the suit, petitioner had t the said Will is a forged and nt. Accordingly, while framing ated 05.10.2015, learned Trial ed proper issues, which are as er the plaintiff and defendant 2 re owners and in possession VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document illegality o findings rec issue ought prove the e with in the that issue genuinenes not be perm of issues, p of framing have been f RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 the land i share? OP 2 Whether executed b defendant fabricated no.1 in c OPP 3. Whether t consequent injunction 4. Whether th OPD 5. Relief." The review-applicant has fail ality or error apparent on the face of ngs recorded by this Court. The contention now sought to ought to have been framed casting on e the execution of the Will, had alrea in the order dated 25.03.2026. This C issue No.2 already encompassed t ineness and execution of the Will and e permitted at such a belated stage to sues, particularly when no objection h aming of issues in the year 2015. Even otherwise, merely becau been framed in a different manner wo 5 nd in dispute to the extent of OPP er the will dated 3.5.2000 ed by Saran Kaur in favour of ant no.1 is wrong, forged and ted procured by defendant in connivance by witnesses? er the plaintiff is entitled to uential relief of permanent tion as prayed for? OPP er the suit is not maintainable? as failed to point out any patent ce of the record in the aforesaid ught to be raised that a separate ting onus upon defendant No.1 to d already been specifically dealt This Court had categorically held ssed the controversy regarding ill and that the petitioners could age to seek reframing or recasting ction had been raised at the time because another issue could also ner would not constitute a ground VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for review substituting judgment misconceiv of the Cour discretion d this Court application stage of tr regarding t exceptional discovery o within the k the order applicant is same set of impermissi appreciatio purview of because the the Court. RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 eview of the judgment. Review jur tituting one possible view with another The reliance placed by the ment in K.K. Velusamy’s case onceived. The said judgment only reco e Court in exceptional circumstances. etion depends upon the facts of each Court had already considered the cations had been moved after closure of trial despite the petitioners bein rding the Will since filing of the w ptional circumstance warranting interfe Significantly, the review app very of any new and important matter in the knowledge of the review-applica order dated 25.03.2026. Rather, the cant is only to persuade this Court to t set of facts and submissions already c rmissible in review jurisdiction. It is well settled that rehear eciation of the entire controversy o iew of review proceedings. A review use the applicant is dissatisfied with th ourt. 6 w jurisdiction is not meant for nother. the review-applicant upon the case (supra) is also wholly recognizes the inherent powers ances. However, exercise of such each case. In the present matter, d the factual position that the losure of evidence and at the final s being fully aware of the plea the written statement. Thus, no interference was found to exist. w application does not disclose matter or evidence which was not applicant at the time of passing of r, the entire endeavour of the urt to take a different view on the ready considered earlier, which is rehearing of the matter and re- rsy on merits falls outside the eview cannot be allowed merely with the conclusions arrived at by VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document record warr application May 15, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo RA-CR-71-2026 in CR-2193-2019 This Court finds no error ap rd warranting review of the detailed ord Accordingly, finding no me cation, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 7 ror apparent on the face of the iled order dated 25.03.2026. o merit in the present review if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document