1 appl393.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 393 OF 2011 Ashok Raju Shetty & ors. .. Appellants. vs The Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. & ors. .. Respondents Mr. U.J.Makhija with Ms. Indra Sajnam i/b. M/s. S.M. Associates, advocate for appellants. Mr. Shailesh Shah with Ms. Mamta Sadh i/b. M/s. Zohair & Co. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH GODBOLE, J 4th July, 2011 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is filed against the order dated 10th June, 2011 of the learned trial Judge allowing the chamber summons filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in Testamentary Suit No. 46 of 1997. The plaintiff had applied for recalling of the witnesses who sought to prove the will, as no evidence was recorded with regard to the hand written date of the Will. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after holding that witness who proved the Will is required to depose about the date of the Will, the learned trial Judge allowed the chamber summons. 2 appl393.11 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar(dead) through Lrs. v/s. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate [(2009) 4 SCC 410]. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. Submission of the respondent is that the impugned order does not decide the right of the parties and therefore, as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Shah Babulal Khimji V/s. Jayaben D. Kania [AIR 1981 SC 1786] the impugned order does not amount to a judgment. 3. The appeal is summarily dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH GODBOLE, J