Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
122+327 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-12558-CII-2026 in/and CR-5042-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 08, 2026 Davinderpal Kaur …Pe77oner Versus Amandeep and others …Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta and Ms. Devika Kamboj, Advocates for the pe toner. Mr. N.S. Boparai and Mr. Ankit Jangra, Advocates for the respondents.
DEEPAK GUPTA
, J.(Oral)
Learned counsel for the par es have been heard in the main case.
2. As borne out from the record that the dispute is related to the estate of Late Sukhdev Singh. Admi&edly, the defendants (respondents herein) are the daughters of Late Sukhdev Singh. Plain ff – Davinderpal Kaur (pe oner herein) claiming to be the wife of Late Sukhdev Singh filed a suit seeking declara on regarding the property le/ by Sukhdev Singh based upon a Will dated 06.01.2013. On the other hand, the respondents have propounded a Will dated 08.03.2006 and alleged the Will propounded by the plain ff-pe oner to be forged. Necessary issues were framed. Par es led their evidence. Evidence of the defendants was closed vide order dated
15.02.2018. During their evidence, defendants had also tendered in evidence the cer fied copy of FSL report as Ex.DW4/E. However, subsequent to the closure of the evidence, plain ff-pe oner moved an applica on for addi onal evidence to place on record the judgment passed by the criminal Court, whereby pe oner was acqui&ed from the charge of SARITA RANI 2026.07.08 17:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CM-12558-CII-2026 in/and - 2 - 2026:PHHC:092090 CR-5042-2022 (O&M) forgery. That applica on was admi&edly allowed on 14.09.2022. The respondents-defendants then moved an applica on (Annexure P-8) for summoning Shri Harsh Vardharn, Formerly Assistant Director, Forensic Science Lab, Madhuban, Karnal for proving the FSL report (Ex.DW4/E). That applica on has been allowed by the trial Court by way of the impugned
order dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-10).
3. Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel for the plain ff-pe oner that once the FSL report (Ex.DW4/E) had been tendered in evidence and the evidence of the defendants-respondents had been closed by the Court order, the defendants could not examine the aforesaid author of the FSL report.
4. However, on a specific query, it is conceded by learned counsel for the pe oner-plain ff that the FSL report (Ex.DW4/E) was duly referred by the criminal Court in recording the acqui&al of pe oner. Once it is so, the defendants-respondents were well within their rights to prove the FSL report by examining its author in rebu&al to the addi onal evidence of pe oner.
5. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, the present revision pe on is hereby dismissed. CM-12558-CII-2026 is moved by the respondents for vaca ng the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by this Court. Since, the main pe on itself has been dismissed today, therefore, the said applica on is disposed of, having been rendered infructuous. All the pending applica on(s) stand(s) disposed of. July 08, 2026
(DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita
JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.07.08 17:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order