IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 SMT. SHANTI GULABCHANDRA ALIAS GULAB HEGDE ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. MANOHAR SURIAJI EGDO ALIAS MANOHAR SURYAJI HEGDE AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. P.S. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 3. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 27th February, 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 2. A Will sought to be produced by the defendants has been disallowed by the learned trial Court, by order dated 10/06/2008 on the ground that the said Will was not executed before the Notary who was a Sub-registrar. The defendants did not specifically refer to the said Will in the list of documents. However, the fact remains that the said Will was in the records and proceedings in Civil Suit No. 254/93 and 255/93 on which reliance was placed by the defendants in their list of documents. Being so, the said Will ought to have been allowed to be produced. Whether it required proof or not is the matter which had to be decided at the trial of the suit. 3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that in case the defendants are allowed to produce the said Will then the plaintiffs may be allowed to reopen their evidence on that aspect, considering that the plaintiffs have now closed their case. This matter can be left for the discretion of the trial Court to be decided after hearing all the parties. 4. In the light of the above, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the defendants are allowed to produce the said Will. The matter of validity/proof of the Will to be decided by the trial Court at the trial of the suit. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH