FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2995 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 1 Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 --- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. An application tendered by the petitioner requesting the court to issue summons to the witness – the Sub- Registrar Jalna -1, to depose on behalf of the plaintiff has been turned down by the trial court, in view of the order passed on 25th March, 2009, below Exhibit 53, in Misc. Civil Application bearing MARJI No.56/2005. 2. The petitioner herein presented his evidence in the probate proceedings and has also tendered the “Evidence Closure Pursis” on 7/3/2009. The petitioner later on revealed that the will deed in question, which is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, has not been proved and an attesting witness to the will is required to be called before the court, so as to prove the execution and attestation of the will deed. Since the will deed was registered, an FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2995 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 2 application was tendered for calling the Sub-Registrar as a witness. The said application has been turned down by the trial court observing that the same cannot be entertained once the petitioner/original applicant has tendered his “Evidence Closure Pursis”. 3. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not intend to examine the Sub-Registrar Jalna and in order to prove the will deed in question, the examination of the registering authority is not essential. The counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that in order to prove the will deed in question, the witnesses necessary for proving the said document would be examined and the procedure prescribed by Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, needs to be followed. 4. It would be permissible for the petitioner to tender an application to the trial court, seeking permission to examine the witnesses with a view to prove the document i.e. the will deed in question. If such an application is tendered, the trial court shall consider the application in accordance with the provisions of law and merely because the “Evidence Closure Pursis” is presented by the petitioner, will not, by itself be an impediment for FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2995 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 3 consideration for such a request. 5. In view of the statement made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the request contained in the application tendered at Exhibit 53 cannot be considered. Petition, therefore, stands disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove. [R.M. BORDE,J.] grt/-