‘whether the petitions filed by the respondents could have been ordered by the learned trial Judge and permitting recall of DW.1 for the purpose ofmarking the documents sought to be produced through him, is
he trial Court could not have come to the conclusion observing that the General Power of Attorney of the 1st respondent could not have known in whose presence his maternal grand father executed Will under Ex.B1.
When DW.1 entered witness box aware of the nature of the case expected to depose and meet the challenge offered by the other side, the reason assigned by the learned trial Judge is not proper and nor can be supported.
Merely because the petitioner would have an opportunity to cross examine DW.1, when once these documents are produced and exhibited, it cannot be stated that whatever right or advantage the petitioner had secured on account of nature of evidence let in by the respondents could be allowed to be watered down on such reason assigned by learned trial Judge. Thus, while holding that the respondents are at liberty to rely on the evidence on record in proof of the fact that both the attestors of Ex.B1 are no more, it is unnecessary either to reopen the suit, to receive the documents sought to be produced by the 1 st respondent or to recall DW.1 for the purpose of marking them. Thus, finding no justification in the order of the trial Court, the same has to be set aside.