CR-1845-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 123 Malvika Walia Indu Munjal and Ors. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Ashok Sehgal Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.1 AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/ revision against impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application filed for examination of handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounde 2. Learned counsel for Munjal plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit (Annexure P she is owner of the house as well as agricultural land on the basis of Wi 28.01.2015 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul and also challenged the Mutation No.8118 dated 30.12.2015 regarding the agricultural land in village Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar in favour of petitioner/defendant No.4 as illegal, null and void. petitioner/defendant No.4 by filing her written statement (Annexure P she also claimed Santosh Paul out of love and affection and challenged the Will dated -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of decision : Malvika Walia V/S njal and Ors. : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the petitione Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.1 **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) Petitioner/defendant No.4 Malvika Walia has filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application filed for examination of handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounded by petitioner/defendant No.4. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.4 stated that Ms. Indu Munjal plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit (Annexure P she is owner of the house as well as agricultural land on the basis of Wi 28.01.2015 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul and also challenged the Mutation No.8118 dated 30.12.2015 regarding the agricultural land in village Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar in favour of petitioner/defendant No.4 as illegal, null and void. The said civil suit was contested by present petitioner/defendant No.4 by filing her written statement (Annexure P she also claimed registered Will dated 24.02.2010 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul out of love and affection and challenged the Will dated - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1845-2026 Date of decision : 02.09.2026 ...... Petitioner ..... Respondents : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.1. defendant No.4 Malvika Walia has filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application filed for examination of handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of late Smt. d by petitioner/defendant No.4. petitioner/defendant No.4 stated that Ms. Indu Munjal plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration that she is owner of the house as well as agricultural land on the basis of Will dated 28.01.2015 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul and also challenged the Mutation No.8118 dated 30.12.2015 regarding the agricultural land in village Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar in favour of petitioner/defendant No.4 as The said civil suit was contested by present petitioner/defendant No.4 by filing her written statement (Annexure P-2), where Will dated 24.02.2010 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul out of love and affection and challenged the Will dated ...... Petitioner ..... Respondents defendant No.4 Malvika Walia has filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application filed for examination of handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of late Smt. petitioner/defendant No.4 stated that Ms. Indu 1) for declaration that ll dated 28.01.2015 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul and also challenged the Mutation No.8118 dated 30.12.2015 regarding the agricultural land in village Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar in favour of petitioner/defendant No.4 as The said civil suit was contested by present , where Will dated 24.02.2010 executed by late Smt. Santosh Paul out of love and affection and challenged the Will dated SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1845-2026 28.01.2015 as false and fabricated document claimed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, application was filed for examination o namely Birbal Bansal through Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). It is pointed out that this order was not challenged by the present petitioner/ under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act (Annexure P-4) for examination of Finger Print and Handwriting Expert to prove the execution of Will propounded by present The said application was contested by respondent No.1/plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-5). The said application was wrongly declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.02.2026. It is further pointed out registered Will dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P witnesses namely Som Raj Sharma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. Out of these two witnesses, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired whereas Birbal Bansal is having health issues, as a circumstances, the application was filed to examine Finger Print and Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounded by petitioner/defend considering the aforesaid factual position, the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was wrongly declined. In order to adjudicate the matter in controversy the examination of Finge as material witness 13.02.2026 may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 may be allowed as prayed for. -2- 28.01.2015 as false and fabricated document claimed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, application was filed for examination o namely Birbal Bansal through Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 10.03.2025 3). It is pointed out that this order was not challenged by the present petitioner/defendant No.4. Subsequently, she filed another application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 4) for examination of Finger Print and Handwriting Expert to prove the execution of Will propounded by present The said application was contested by respondent No.1/plaintiff by filing reply 5). The said application was wrongly declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.02.2026. It is further pointed out Will dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P witnesses namely Som Raj Sharma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. Out of these two witnesses, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired whereas Birbal Bansal is having health issues, as a result he could not appear in the court. Under these circumstances, the application was filed to examine Finger Print and Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounded by petitioner/defend considering the aforesaid factual position, the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was wrongly declined. In order to adjudicate the matter in controversy the examination of Finge tness is necessary. It is submitted that impugned order dated 13.02.2026 may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 may be allowed as prayed for. - 28.01.2015 as false and fabricated document claimed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, application was filed for examination of witness namely Birbal Bansal through Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 10.03.2025 3). It is pointed out that this order was not challenged by the defendant No.4. Subsequently, she filed another application , 1872 read with Section 151 CPC 4) for examination of Finger Print and Handwriting Expert to prove the execution of Will propounded by present petitioner/defendant No.4. The said application was contested by respondent No.1/plaintiff by filing reply 5). The said application was wrongly declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.02.2026. It is further pointed out that the Will dated 24.02.2010 (Annexure P-6) was witnessed by two witnesses namely Som Raj Sharma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. Out of these two witnesses, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired whereas Birbal Bansal result he could not appear in the court. Under these circumstances, the application was filed to examine Finger Print and Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounded by petitioner/defendant No.4. Without considering the aforesaid factual position, the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was wrongly declined. In order to adjudicate the matter in controversy the examination of Finger Print and Handwriting Expert . It is submitted that impugned order dated 13.02.2026 may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 may be allowed as prayed for. 28.01.2015 as false and fabricated document claimed by the plaintiff. During f witness namely Birbal Bansal through Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 10.03.2025 3). It is pointed out that this order was not challenged by the defendant No.4. Subsequently, she filed another application read with Section 151 CPC 4) for examination of Finger Print and Handwriting Expert to petitioner/defendant No.4. The said application was contested by respondent No.1/plaintiff by filing reply 5). The said application was wrongly declined by learned trial that the 6) was witnessed by two witnesses namely Som Raj Sharma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. Out of these two witnesses, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired whereas Birbal Bansal result he could not appear in the court. Under these circumstances, the application was filed to examine Finger Print and Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures of late Smt. ant No.4. Without considering the aforesaid factual position, the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was wrongly declined. In order to adjudicate the r Print and Handwriting Expert . It is submitted that impugned order dated 13.02.2026 may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and the SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1845-2026 3. On the other hand, learned counse No.1/plaintiff considered by learned trial Court. It was incumbent on petitioner/defendant No.4 to prove the Will as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 declined as she could not produce the medical record of said witness Birbal Bansal to justify his recording of statement by appointing Local Commissioner. Therefore, the application w 10.03.2025 (Annexure P application for comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the disputed Will by examining Finger Print and Handwriting Exp his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has put the judgment of 10170 of 2013 titled “Pazhanathal (dead) through LRs and others vs. Alamathal (Dead) t 4747: Law Finder Doc Id# 2961265. preferred by petitioner/defendant No.4 deserves dismissal. 4. I have considered the arguments, advanced by learned counsel representing both the sides and have gone assistance. In the case in hand, the dispute is regarding House No.1238, Cat HIG, Sector 43 standing in the name of late Smt. Santosh Paul. As per Munjal she was residing in House No. as tenant. Her matrimonial dispute started. Late Smt. Santosh Paul started treating her as her own daughter. She claimed her relationship of love and -3- On the other hand, learned counse No.1/plaintiff vehemently argued that the factual position was rightly considered by learned trial Court. It was incumbent on petitioner/defendant No.4 to prove the Will as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian , 1872. Earlier, application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was declined as she could not produce the medical record of said witness Birbal Bansal to justify his recording of statement by appointing Local Commissioner. Therefore, the application was rightly declined by passing order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, petitioner/defendant No.4 filed present application for comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the disputed Will by examining Finger Print and Handwriting Exp his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has put the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 10170 of 2013 titled “Pazhanathal (dead) through LRs and others vs. Alamathal (Dead) through LRs and others” cited in : Law Finder Doc Id# 2961265. It is submi preferred by petitioner/defendant No.4 deserves dismissal. I have considered the arguments, advanced by learned counsel representing both the sides and have gone through assistance. In the case in hand, the dispute is regarding House No.1238, Cat 43-B, Chandigarh as well as ¼ th standing in the name of late Smt. Santosh Paul. As per Munjal she was residing in House No. 1238, Cat as tenant. Her matrimonial dispute started. Late Smt. Santosh Paul started treating her as her own daughter. She claimed her relationship of love and - On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent argued that the factual position was rightly considered by learned trial Court. It was incumbent on petitioner/defendant No.4 to prove the Will as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian . Earlier, application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was declined as she could not produce the medical record of said witness Birbal Bansal to justify his recording of statement by appointing Local Commissioner. as rightly declined by passing order dated 3). Thereafter, petitioner/defendant No.4 filed present application for comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the disputed Will by examining Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. To support his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has put reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10169- 10170 of 2013 titled “Pazhanathal (dead) through LRs and others vs. ” cited in 2026 Law Finder (SC) It is submitted that present civil revision preferred by petitioner/defendant No.4 deserves dismissal. I have considered the arguments, advanced by learned counsel through the record with their able assistance. In the case in hand, the dispute is regarding House No.1238, Cat- th share in the agricultural land standing in the name of late Smt. Santosh Paul. As per case of plaintiff-Indu 1238, Cat-HIG, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh as tenant. Her matrimonial dispute started. Late Smt. Santosh Paul started treating her as her own daughter. She claimed her relationship of love and l representing respondent argued that the factual position was rightly considered by learned trial Court. It was incumbent on petitioner/defendant No.4 to prove the Will as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian . Earlier, application filed by petitioner/defendant No.4 was declined as she could not produce the medical record of said witness Birbal Bansal to justify his recording of statement by appointing Local Commissioner. as rightly declined by passing order dated 3). Thereafter, petitioner/defendant No.4 filed present application for comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the ert. To support on - 10170 of 2013 titled “Pazhanathal (dead) through LRs and others vs. 2026 Law Finder (SC) ted that present civil revision I have considered the arguments, advanced by learned counsel able - share in the agricultural land Indu B, Chandigarh as tenant. Her matrimonial dispute started. Late Smt. Santosh Paul started treating her as her own daughter. She claimed her relationship of love and SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1845-2026 affection and relied upon Will dated 28.01.2015 allegedly execut Santosh Paul. On the basis of said This suit is contested by petitioner/defendant No.4 where she denied the facts narrated in the plaint. In fact, she was bed ridden for the last two years and there was no occasion for her to execute a registered Will in favour of plaintiff. She claimed herself to be the relative of Smt. Santosh Paul being her real Tai/aunt and had executed registered Will dated 24.02.2010 in favour of Malvika i.e. petitioner/de of said registered Will position, trial is going on and the case was fixed for defendant evidence when first application was filed to record the st through Local Commissioner at the residence of the witness. It was alleged that the witness was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, therefore, he was not in a position to appear in the court. The learned trial Court decli as no certificate issued from registered medical practitioner was produced along with the application. Thereafter, application was filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act Finger Print and Handwriting Expert (Annexure P contested by respondent/plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P registered Will dated 24.02.2010 is Annexure P witnessed by Som Raj Shar more than 16 years old. At present, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired and regarding the second witness Birbal Bansal, application for recording of his statement through Local Commissioner has been declin 10.03.2025 (Annexure P -4- affection and relied upon Will dated 28.01.2015 allegedly execut Santosh Paul. On the basis of said registered Will, she filed suit for declaration. This suit is contested by petitioner/defendant No.4 where she denied the facts narrated in the plaint. In fact, she was bed ridden for the last two years and here was no occasion for her to execute a registered Will in favour of plaintiff. She claimed herself to be the relative of Smt. Santosh Paul being her real aunt and had executed registered Will dated 24.02.2010 in favour of i.e. petitioner/defendant No.4, who was minor at the time of execution of said registered Will, out of love and affection. With the aforesaid factual position, trial is going on and the case was fixed for defendant evidence when first application was filed to record the statement of witness Balbir Bansal through Local Commissioner at the residence of the witness. It was alleged that the witness was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, therefore, he was not in a position to appear in the court. The learned trial Court decli as no certificate issued from registered medical practitioner was produced along with the application. Thereafter, application was filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 CPC for examination of Print and Handwriting Expert (Annexure P contested by respondent/plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P registered Will dated 24.02.2010 is Annexure P witnessed by Som Raj Sharma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. The document is more than 16 years old. At present, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired and regarding the second witness Birbal Bansal, application for recording of his statement through Local Commissioner has been declin 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). In that scenario, this application has been filed for - affection and relied upon Will dated 28.01.2015 allegedly executed by Smt. Will, she filed suit for declaration. This suit is contested by petitioner/defendant No.4 where she denied the facts narrated in the plaint. In fact, she was bed ridden for the last two years and here was no occasion for her to execute a registered Will in favour of plaintiff. She claimed herself to be the relative of Smt. Santosh Paul being her real aunt and had executed registered Will dated 24.02.2010 in favour of who was minor at the time of execution out of love and affection. With the aforesaid factual position, trial is going on and the case was fixed for defendant evidence when atement of witness Balbir Bansal through Local Commissioner at the residence of the witness. It was alleged that the witness was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, therefore, he was not in a position to appear in the court. The learned trial Court declined the application as no certificate issued from registered medical practitioner was produced along with the application. Thereafter, application was filed under Section 45 of read with Section 151 CPC for examination of Print and Handwriting Expert (Annexure P-4). This application is also contested by respondent/plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-5). The disputed registered Will dated 24.02.2010 is Annexure P-6. As per this document, it was ma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. The document is more than 16 years old. At present, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired and regarding the second witness Birbal Bansal, application for recording of his statement through Local Commissioner has been declined vide order dated . In that scenario, this application has been filed for ed by Smt. Will, she filed suit for declaration. This suit is contested by petitioner/defendant No.4 where she denied the facts narrated in the plaint. In fact, she was bed ridden for the last two years and here was no occasion for her to execute a registered Will in favour of plaintiff. She claimed herself to be the relative of Smt. Santosh Paul being her real aunt and had executed registered Will dated 24.02.2010 in favour of who was minor at the time of execution out of love and affection. With the aforesaid factual position, trial is going on and the case was fixed for defendant evidence when atement of witness Balbir Bansal through Local Commissioner at the residence of the witness. It was alleged that the witness was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, therefore, he was not in a ned the application as no certificate issued from registered medical practitioner was produced along with the application. Thereafter, application was filed under Section 45 of read with Section 151 CPC for examination of 4). This application is also 5). The disputed 6. As per this document, it was ma, Advocate and Birbal Bansal. The document is more than 16 years old. At present, Som Raj Sharma, Advocate has expired and regarding the second witness Birbal Bansal, application for recording of his vide order dated . In that scenario, this application has been filed for SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1845-2026 comparison of signatures of testator of registered Will dated 24.02.2010 from Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 runs as under: “68. Proof of execution of document attested not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence As per this provision, a document required to be attested by two or more witnesses is to be proved by examining at least one witn and capable of giving evidence. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof where no attesting witness is found which runs as under: “69. Proof witness can be found executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions, in the case in hand one of the witness has expired whereas the other witness is allegedly suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was not in a position to appear in the court, however, the application for his examination through Local Commissioner is already -5- comparison of signatures of testator of registered Will dated 24.02.2010 from Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 runs as under:- 68. Proof of execution of document attested – If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.” As per this provision, a document required to be attested by two or more witnesses is to be proved by examining at least one witn and capable of giving evidence. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof where no attesting witness is found which runs as under: 69. Proof where no attesting witness found witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person”. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions, in the case in hand one of the witness has expired whereas the other witness is allegedly suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was not in a position to appear in the court, however, ion for his examination through Local Commissioner is already - comparison of signatures of testator of registered Will dated 24.02.2010 from Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and As per this provision, a document required to be attested by two or more witnesses is to be proved by examining at least one witness who is alive and capable of giving evidence. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof where no attesting witness is found which runs as under:- where no attesting witness found – If no such attesting , or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions, in the case in hand one of the witness has expired whereas the other witness is allegedly suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was not in a position to appear in the court, however, ion for his examination through Local Commissioner is already comparison of signatures of testator of registered Will dated 24.02.2010 from Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, required by law to be If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and As per this provision, a document required to be attested by two or ess who is alive and capable of giving evidence. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 If no such attesting , or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions, in the case in hand one of the witness has expired whereas the other witness is allegedly suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was not in a position to appear in the court, however, ion for his examination through Local Commissioner is already SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1845-2026 declined by learned trial Court. The facts and the evidence on record can be appreciated at the time of final adjudication of the case. 6. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate to restrict petitioner/defendant No.4 from examining Finger Print and Handwriting Expert 13.02.2026 is accordingly set aside by a prayer of petitioner/defendant No.4 to examine Expert for the purpose the Will propounded by petitioner/defendant No.4 is allowed 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. 02.09.2026. Sunil Devi -6- declined by learned trial Court. The facts and the evidence on record can be appreciated at the time of final adjudication of the case. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate to restrict petitioner/defendant No.4 from examining Finger Print and Handwriting Expert. Therefore, impugned order dated 13.02.2026 is accordingly set aside by accepting present civil revision and the prayer of petitioner/defendant No.4 to examine purpose of comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounded by petitioner/defendant No.4 is allowed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No - declined by learned trial Court. The facts and the evidence on record can be appreciated at the time of final adjudication of the case. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate to restrict petitioner/defendant No.4 from examining . Therefore, impugned order dated ccepting present civil revision and the prayer of petitioner/defendant No.4 to examine Finger Print and Handwriting of comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on the Will propounded by petitioner/defendant No.4 is allowed as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of (AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE declined by learned trial Court. The facts and the evidence on record can be Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, in my opinion, it will not be appropriate to restrict petitioner/defendant No.4 from examining . Therefore, impugned order dated ccepting present civil revision and the Finger Print and Handwriting of comparison of signatures of late Smt. Santosh Paul on Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document