MOHD. SHAMIM ( 1 ) THIS is an application by respondent No. 2 for permission to cross-examine the witnesses already produced nythe petitioner i. e. S/ Shri Prem Nath Batra, Raghu Nath batra and Sanjeev Sapra who have already been examined in the present case by the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent by Mr R. K. Saini, Advocate that the applicant was not aware of the present proceedings which were initiated by the petitioners for the grant of probate in respect of an alleged will dated February 20. 1980 left by one Shri O. P. Sapra, father of the respondents. She was never served with the summonses of the present case as is manifest from the record. She came to know with regard to the present proceedings when she was called as a witness by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 thereafter applied to the Indian Council for Legal Aid and Advice for legal aid and it was only when that she was provided with the services of a counsel. In case the applicant does not cross-examine the witnesses already produced on behalf of the petitioner she is likely to suffer irreparable loss and damage and her interest and defence would be prejudiced. The application is supported by an affidavit. ( 3 ) THE application has been vehemently opposed by the petitioner. It has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent that It is false and preposterous that the applicant did not know the present proceedings. In fact, she was fully aware of the present proceedings, yet she chose not to cross-examine his witnesses. All the respondents have been duly served as is manifest from the affidavit filed with regard to the service, sworn by Shri Sanjiv Sapra i. e. the petitioner. Furthermore, the citation was published in the Hindustan Times dated November 2,1983. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the applicant came to know with regard to the present proceedings. ( 4 ) THE next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the applicant appeared as a witness as DW1 on May 13,1985 on behalf of the respondents. However, for the best reasons known to her she moved the present application on November 19. 1987. ( 4 ) THE next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the applicant appeared as a witness as DW1 on May 13,1985 on behalf of the respondents. However, for the best reasons known to her she moved the present application on November 19. 1987. The present application, according to the learned counsel, has been moved at the instance of respondent No. 1. The applicant has not even filed any-written statement. This shows her indifference, non-chalance and insouciance with regard to the present proceedings. The learned counsel has further contended that attempts were made by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to recall the witnesses but they failed miserably to do so. Hence, the applicant has been put up to attain the said object. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined the facts of the present case and have given my anxious thought thereto. ( 6 ) THERE is absolutely nothing on record to show and prove that the applicant was ever served with a notice in the present proceedings. In fact, in reply to para 3 of the application where the applicant has alleged that she was never served with the summons in the present case, the petitioner in the corresponding para has simply contented himself by stating that it is a matter of record. Thus, neither any summons nor any notice was shown to the Court in order to substantiate the averment that the applicant was aware of the present proceedings. It is true that there is an affidavit on record sworn by Mr. Sanjiv Sapra wherein he has stated that all the respondents have been served. However, the said affidavit is of the petitioner Sanjiv Sapra himself. Hence, I am not prepared to place much reliance on it. ( 7 ) IT has next been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that respondents Nos. 1 and 3 made several attempts to recall the said witnesses and the said attempt failed. Thus, having seen no alternative the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have now put up the applicant in order to achieve and attain their goal. ( 7 ) IT has next been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that respondents Nos. 1 and 3 made several attempts to recall the said witnesses and the said attempt failed. Thus, having seen no alternative the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have now put up the applicant in order to achieve and attain their goal. To my mind, the said argument is of no avail to the petitioner inasmuch as all the parties who have been arrayed have got their own interest and they have to safeguard the same. The respondent No. 2 while appearing as DW1 has very categorically stated that her grand-mother always used to say that all the four children would get the property belonging to her father in equal shares. Thus, she has challenged the will and has not admitted the same. It implies thereby that she claims an interest in the property as is manifest from the above statement. Thus, she has got the right to cross-examine the witnesses. ( 8 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the applicant has not filed any written statement she has got no intention to challenge the impugned will in the present case. I am sorry, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. It is manifest from her statement that she wants an equal share in the property left by her father and she has stated so in her statement on oath. Thus, how it can be inferred therefrom that she has got no interest in the property left by her father. Thus, the cross-examination of the witnesses, I feel, would be very much necessary in order to safeguard her interest. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel has then argued that admittedly she appeared as witness on May 13. 1985, yet why did she wait for such along period in order to move the present application which was moved on November 19,1987. The applicant is admittedly a lady. She was not in a position even to engage her counsel. She was provided with the services of a lawyer by the Legal Aid and Advice Board in September 1986. Thus, if she was so advised subsequently to move an application for recalling of the witnesses in order to cross-examine them, she cannot be blamed therefor. She was not in a position even to engage her counsel. She was provided with the services of a lawyer by the Legal Aid and Advice Board in September 1986. Thus, if she was so advised subsequently to move an application for recalling of the witnesses in order to cross-examine them, she cannot be blamed therefor. Assuming arguendo, that even If there is some delay on her part, the question which comes to the tip of the tongue is as to whether she could be deprived of her right to cross-examine the said witnesses on the said score? My answer to the above question is an emphatic No. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to succeed. The application is allowed. Let all the witnesses of the petitioner be recalled for the purposes of cross- examination by the applicant. The applicant would bear the expenses for recalling the said witnesses. The cross-examination of the said witnesses, it is made clear, would be confined only to safeguard the alleged interests of the applicant/respondent No. 2 in the properties in dispute. The application stands disposed of accordingly.