Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Permission to Lead Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC; ₹25,000 Cost Imposed for Delay in Proving Will

Case Name: Shital Kaur @ Sheetal Kaur (Deceased) Through LR Daljit Kaur v. Harjit Kaur & Others
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2025
Citation: CR-7656-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the order of the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, permitting the examination of an attesting witness to a disputed Will under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, while cautioning that such discretion must be exercised with judicial discipline and subject to due diligence. Justice Deepak Gupta clarified that Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates examination of at least one attesting witness before recourse can be taken to Section 71. Finding that repeated trial-stage efforts were made to summon the surviving attesting witness, the Court held that the Appellate Court rightly allowed the application, as his testimony was essential to pronounce judgment on the genuineness of the Will.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the appellate court’s order dated September 26, 2025, allowing Harjit Kaur (defendant/appellant) to lead additional evidence by examining Raghbir Singh, one of the attesting witnesses to a Will executed on July 7, 2005. The trial court had earlier rejected the Will for non-examination of the surviving attesting witness. Observing that one witness had died and the other’s presence could not be secured despite summons and bailable warrants, the appellate court permitted examination in the interest of justice. The High Court emphasized that the power under Order XLI Rule 27 should not be used to fill lacunae but may be exercised where the evidence is indispensable for a just decision. It cited Gurdev Singh & Anr. v. Harbans Singh (CR-1745-2022, decided on 20.12.2022) and reiterated that necessity, not mere relevance, is the governing test for admitting additional evidence.

Decision: The High Court affirmed the appellate order allowing additional evidence but imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the appellant-defendant, payable by demand draft within three weeks, before examination of the witness. It directed the appellate court to record the testimony expeditiously—within six weeks of deposit—ensuring cross-examination and rebuttal limited to the permitted scope. In default of payment, the permission to lead additional evidence would stand recalled, and the appeal would proceed on the existing record.