to A-13 % 19.08.2011 Present: Ms.Suman Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.T.S. Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent. +CM (M) No. 891/2009 &. CM Nos. 12011/2009 & 12774/2009 * Order impugned is the order dated 03.08.2009. Vide this order, the third witness Madan Lal Khanna who was admittedly an attesting witness to the Will of deceased Bhim Sen dated 09.02.1997 had been permitted to be examined. Record shows that the two probate petitions had been filed by the two rival claimants to the property of the deceased Bhim Sen. The petitioner before this Court had set up a Will dated 23.05.1997 for which one probate petition has been filed; the respondent has filed a counter probate petition seeking probate of the Will of the deceased Bhim Sen dated 09.02.1997. In the Will dated 09.02.1997, there were three attesting witnesses namely Madan Lal Khanna, Jagdish Kumar and Manohar Lal. All the aforenoted witnesses had been arrayed in the list of witnesses. Dr. Manohar Lal had been examined and discharged on one day. Thereafter the contention of the petitioner/respondent (before the trial court) was that the other two attesting witnesses should be cross-examined on the same day; on 24.03.2008, the Court had noted that since the law requires only two attesting Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified witnesses of a Will and one of the said attesting witness has already been cross-examined, on the submission of the petitioner, third attesting witness (Madan Lal Khanna) whose affidavit was already on record was taken off the record and he was dropped from the list of witnesses. On 03.08.2009 on an application under Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') filed by the respondent, permission had been granted to the respondent to examine the third attesting witness namely Madan Lal Khanna. The contention in this application was that the name of Madan Lal Khanna had been agreed to be dropped from the list of witnesses as the legal requirement for proving a Will requires the examination of two witnesses only; further it would save the time of the Court; however since the petitioner has an option to examine the third witness as well and in view of certain discrepancies which had occurred in the testimony of PW-2, in the interest of the claim of the petitioner, he would like to examine the third attesting witness 1'' as well. This prayer had been allowed vide the impugned order. The Court had noted that the name of Madan Lal Khanna was already there in the original list of witnesses; in fact his evidence by way of affidavit was a part of the record on the date when the name of Madan Lal Khanna was directed to be dropped from the list of witnesses. This is evident from the order dated 24.03.2008. (2- The contentions made in the application under Section 151 of the Code had been adverted to; interest of justice had weighed in the mind of the Court while allowing his prayer; even otherwise no prejudice would be suffered by the non-applica1it. Order suffers from no infirmity. Dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 19, 2011 a it I