Judgment 1. This is Civil revision against the order of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana dated 16-11-1998 whereby he declined the application of the plaintiffs moved by them under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permitting them to resummon Ajit Singh son of Sohan Singh by way of additional evidence. 2. It was a suit filed by Balwinder Singh, Jasminder Singh alias Jaswinder Singh Rajinder Singh sons of Subedar Hari Singh son of Jagir Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Jagtar Singh sons of Amarjit Singh son of Jagir Singh, plaintiffs against Subedar Hari Singh and others, defendants for declaration that they and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 are exclusive owners of land measuring 126 Kanals 5 marlas on the basis of registered will dated 12-3-1981 executed by Jagir Singh son of Harnam Singh in their favour and for permanent injunction restraining Subedar Hari Singh etc., defendants from interfering in their possession and for further declaration that mutation No. 4593 dated 17-4-1986 in favour of Subedar Hari Singh, etc. defendants Nos. 1 to 5 is illegal and ineffective so far as the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 in the land are concerned. 3. In the application filed under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs for summoning Ajit Singh son of Sohan Singh and examining him, it is averred that in the will executed by Jagir Singh dated 12-3-1981, he had bequeathed 1/3rd share in favour of three sons of Hari Singh son of Jagir Singh. He had bequeathed 1/3rd share in favour of two sons of Amarjit Singh son of Jagir Singh and he had bequeathed the remaining 1/3rd share in favour of four sons of Babu Singh. Will was attested by Ajit Singh son of Sohan Singh and Darbara Singh, Lambardar. It is averred in this application that Darbara Singh, Lambardar has expired while Ajit Singh is alive. Ajit Singh hobnobbed with defendant Gurcharan Singh son of Jagir Singh and joined hands with him. Ajit Singh was directed to be summoned through warrants. Ajit Singh did not turn up for evidence due to pressure of Gurcharan Singh. Eventually, Court closed evidence of the plaintiffs by order. Ajit Singh hobnobbed with defendant Gurcharan Singh son of Jagir Singh and joined hands with him. Ajit Singh was directed to be summoned through warrants. Ajit Singh did not turn up for evidence due to pressure of Gurcharan Singh. Eventually, Court closed evidence of the plaintiffs by order. It is further averred in this application that it was not in the control of the plaintiffs to produce Ajit Singh when he had turned hostile. It is averred that to prove the execution of the will at least one attesting witness is required to be examined because of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. 4. Gurcharan Singh, defendant opposed this application. It may be mentioned here that Gurcharan Singh is son of Jagir Singh, propounder of the alleged will. It was alleged that no such will was ever executed by Jagir Singh while in sound disposing mind. Will was an act of manipulation by the plaintiffs, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, 4 to 9. It was also urged that issues were framed on 27-5-1988. Despite many opportunities having been availed of by the plaintiffs, they did not make any effort to bring Ajit Singh or get him served. On 28-1-1991 plaintiffs through their counsel made statement that they be allowed one more adjournment and in case they failed to produce Ajit Singh, their evidence be deemed as closed. Despite that undertaking, they were given further adjournment and many last opportunities. On 20-8-1992 plaintiffs filed second list of witnesses including summoning of Ajit Singh. It was averred that plaintiffs had undertaken to produce the witnesses on 4-9-1992 on their own responsibility irrespective of whether they were served or were not served or whether they refused to receive summons and further they would not ask for another date. On 4-9-1992 statement of one witness was recorded. No other witness was brought. As such, evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 4-9-1992. Plaintiffs did not collect dasti summons from the Court. They made no effort to bring said witnesses. It was also averred that thereafter defendants Nos. 6 to 9 also summoned Ajit Singh. Non-bailable warrants through SHO were issued for summoning said Ajit Singh. It was also ordered that defendants be given summons and last opportunity was given. Even then no effort was made by defendants Nos. They made no effort to bring said witnesses. It was also averred that thereafter defendants Nos. 6 to 9 also summoned Ajit Singh. Non-bailable warrants through SHO were issued for summoning said Ajit Singh. It was also ordered that defendants be given summons and last opportunity was given. Even then no effort was made by defendants Nos. 6 to 9 to get the presence of said witnesses. On 25-8-1993 the counsel for the defendants Nos. 6 to 9 made statement in Court that they be given one more opportunity to produce Ajit Singh and dasti summons be given to them and they undertook that if they failed to produce Ajit Singh, they would not press for the attendance of Ajit Singh. On 20-9-1993, Ajit Singh was not produced. Evidence of defendants Nos. 6 to 9 was closed by order. It was further averred that after the evidence of both the parties had been closed that the case was posted for rebuttal evidence and arguments, when this application for additional evidence was filed. 5. Vide the impugned order dated 16-11-1998, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana declined this application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that case of petitioners hinges on will dated 12-3-1981 which is a registered will. It was submitted that if they are not allowed to produce Ajit Singh, the only surviving attesting witness of the will, there will be serious injustice to them and also injustice to the last wish of Jagir Singh (the testator), who had excluded his son Gurcharan Singh and had made bequest in favour of the sons of his other sons. It was submitted that the rules of procedure are mere hand maid of justice. It was submitted that a party cannot be denied the right to examine any witness on the mere ground that this witness could have been produced at the time of leading affirmative evidence or when he had right to lead rebuttal evidence. It was submitted that it is also no ground to reject such a request on a blanket rule that since this evidence was available to the plaintiffs or it was within their knowledge, then at the fag-end of the trial they should not be allowed to produce such evidence. In support of this submission he drew my attention to Ram Singh V/s. Pirthi, 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 667. In support of this submission he drew my attention to Ram Singh V/s. Pirthi, 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 667. He also drew my attention to Raghbir Singh V/s. Smt. Malkiar Kaur, 1998 (2) All Instant Judgments 275 where it was held that the Court has ample power in view of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 of Order 18 to permit any party to examine any witness at any stage and this power can be exercised even if the case for additional evidence does not specify the conditions laid down by Order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule was laid down on these facts :- Plaintiffs had examined two witnesses and closed evidence. Thereafter, he filed application to permit him to produce further evidence to prove the disputed will executed by the brother of the plaintiffs. That application was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fatehgarh Sahib but was allowed by this Court. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that it is not a case where the plaintiffs could be permitted to produce Ajit Singh by way of additional evidence. 8. Plaintiffs had filed this suit on 26-5-1986. Issues were framed on 27-5-1989. Onus to prove the will was on the plaintiffs. Ajit Singh was summoned by them but they apprehended that he will not support the will. They took summons dasti. They took his bailable warrants. They took a number of opportunities to produce Ajit Singh. They made statement on 28-1-1991 through their counsel that they be given one adjournment and in case they failed to bring that witness, their evidence be deemed as closed. Despite this undertaking they were given further adjournment and many last opportunities and their evidence was closed on 4-8-1992. They did not go in revision against the order dated 4-8-1992 closing their evidence and thus this order became final between the parties. It was submitted that when the plaintiffs failed to produce Ajit Singh, defendants Nos. 6 to 9 took it upon themselves to produce Ajit Singh. Defendants Nos. 6 to 9 summoned Ajit Singh. They got his non-bailable warrants to be executed through SHO.On 25-8-1993 counsel for defendants Nos. It was submitted that when the plaintiffs failed to produce Ajit Singh, defendants Nos. 6 to 9 took it upon themselves to produce Ajit Singh. Defendants Nos. 6 to 9 summoned Ajit Singh. They got his non-bailable warrants to be executed through SHO.On 25-8-1993 counsel for defendants Nos. 6 to 9 made statement that they be given one opportunity to produce Ajit Singh and they be delivered dasti summons and in case they failed to produce Ajit Singh, they would not ask for another adjournment. On 20-9-1993 said witness was not present and the Court closed their evidence by order. 9. It was submitted that the plaintiffs moved this application when earlier they had failed to produce Ajit Singh despite having availed of a number of opportunities and when defendants Nos. 6 to 9 had also failed to produce Ajit Singh. It was submitted that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the travesty of justice if now plaintiffs are allowed to produce Ajit Singh. It was submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court had desired the expeditious disposal of this case vide its order dated 3-12-1988. This Court had directed the parties to produce evidence at their own responsibility. It was in view of this background that the Court had directed the parties to produce the entire evidence at their own responsibility. 10. Facts of this case are peculiar. In this case, it is a registered will, which is said to have been attested by Ajit Singh and Darbara Singh, Lambardar, Darbara Singh, Lambardar is dead. In view of provisions of Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, will is required to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness if he were alive. In this case if Ajit Singh is not examined, will may be held as not proved for want of the compliance of the provisions of Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. It is true that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 have availed of a number of opportunities to produce Ajit Singh and despite having availed of a number of opportunities to produce Ajit Singh, they could not produce Ajit Singh and the Court had per force to close the evidence of the plaintiffs and that of defendants Nos. It is true that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 have availed of a number of opportunities to produce Ajit Singh and despite having availed of a number of opportunities to produce Ajit Singh, they could not produce Ajit Singh and the Court had per force to close the evidence of the plaintiffs and that of defendants Nos. 6 to 9 and post the case for evidence of other defendants and this application for additional evidence was moved when the case was in the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. In this case looking to the fact that plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 had set up a registered will in their favour, the proof of which was not possible without examining Ajit Singh, an attesting witness who alone was alive, the Court should have allowed this application for additional evidence and permitted the plaintiffs to produce Ajit Singh. 11. Consequently, this revision is allowed, order dated 16-11-1998 is set aside and the application under Order XVIII, Rule 17-A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs for resummoning Ajit Singh is allowed. Ajit Singh is allowed to be produced as witness by the plaintiffs. If need be, the presence of Ajit Singh will be procured by the Court by bringing into play the coercive process, enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure. Parties shall also co-operate in this endeavour of the Court so that Ajit Singh is produced and the case is decided. Plaintiffs shall pay Rs. 3000/- as costs to Gurcharan Singh son of Jagir Singh, defendant. Plaintiffs shall procure summons dasti, take process server with them for service on Ajit Singh. Court will depute pains taking and honest process server for service on Ajit Singh. 12. Civil Revision is allowed.Petition allowed.