JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 12.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh allowing the statement of attesting witness Rakesh Kumar Gupta to be recorded as additional evidence at the stage of first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The file has been ordered to be laid before the learned trial Court on 20.4.2005 when the defendant-respondents are required to examine the attesting witness. It has further been directed that three opportunities in a period of 45 days are be granted by the learned trial Court to conclude the additional evidence and the same is required to be sent back to the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has given a categorical finding that evidence of second attesting witness is essential to enable the Court to decide the appeal effectively. It has not been disputed that Rakesh Kumar Gupta was sought to be examined by the trial Court but his presence could not be procured by the defendant-respondents. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed civil suit for possession by way of partition to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit property between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant-respondents 1 to 3. A further prayer for permanent injunction was also made restraining defendant-respondents 1 to 3 from alienating or transferring suit property to any one till partition. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed. The defendant- respondents were also restrained from alienating the suit property till final decree was passed. The trial Court discarded the Will set up by the defendant-respondent No. 1 on account of suspicious circumstances. The defendant-respondents filed appeal under Section 96 of the Code and requested for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. The application has been allowed vide order dated 12.3.2005. The operative part of the order reads as under : ".... The defendants were called upon to lead evidence on 7.2.2002 and after examining three DWs on the 4th opportunity for his purpose, counsel for defendant had closed his evidence. At page 223 of the learned trial Court files lies an application of Dhian Kaur whereby she had asked for summons being served upon Rakesh Kumar Gupta and had also deposited Diet money of Rs. 100/- as ordered by the learned trial Court. At page 223 of the learned trial Court files lies an application of Dhian Kaur whereby she had asked for summons being served upon Rakesh Kumar Gupta and had also deposited Diet money of Rs. 100/- as ordered by the learned trial Court. At page 241 of the learned trial Court lies summons addressed to Rakesh Kumar for 7.3.2003 on which Process Server has reported about non-availability of the witness. The fact that defendant had applied for summoning Rakesh Kumar Gupta as her witness and had deposited Diet Money for him on 17.12.2002 and there is no indication available on the file that summons for Rakesh Kumar Gupta were ordered for more than once and that also for 7.3.2003 the date on which they were received back undelivered and evidence was closed by the defendant, establishes that there was no lack of diligence on the part of Dhian Kaur. The outcome of the dispute between the parties rests upon appreciation of Will set up by Dhian Kaur. She has failed to prove the execution of the Will in the learned trial Court for the reason of not examining Rakesh Kumar Gupta and for examining an uninspiring witness Pawanjit Sohi. Even if it may be little out of context yet it will be necessary to express at this stage that Pawanjit Sohi Clerk with Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate who was apparently made to append his signature on the Will as one of its attesting witnesses by his master Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate with whom he was working as a Clerk and Rakesh Kumar Gupta had himself attested the same very Will as other attesting witness. This practice of providing attesting witnesses for the execution and registration of Will as against the testator himself providing attesting witnesses is not in the interest of administration of justice. None-the-less this Court is of the opinion that evidence of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate the other attesting witness of the Will, is still material for the outcome of the dispute between the parties. Guided by Sakuntla Chakraborty v. Shiba Parsad Roy, AIR 1998 Cal. 20, Jagannath Pardan v. Kailash Bardan, 1998(1) CCC 133 and Amar Singh v. Sheo Narain, 1993 PLJ 11, I find that evidence of second attesting witness is required and is essential to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment in an effective manner. Guided by Sakuntla Chakraborty v. Shiba Parsad Roy, AIR 1998 Cal. 20, Jagannath Pardan v. Kailash Bardan, 1998(1) CCC 133 and Amar Singh v. Sheo Narain, 1993 PLJ 11, I find that evidence of second attesting witness is required and is essential to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment in an effective manner. Resultantly, the application for additional evidence is allowed. File is ordered to be laid before the learned trial Court on 20.4.2005 on which date the appellant would be required to examine Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta. In any case not more than three opportunities in a period of 45 days be granted by the learned trial Court to Dhian Kaur to conclude the additional evidence and when so taken additional evidence be sent back to this Court." 3. After hearing the learned counsel I am of the considered view that the trial Court had summoned Rakesh Kumar Gupta, an attesting witness on the Will on the request of the defendant-respondent after she had deposited diet money and process fee on 17.12.2002. When the summons were received back undelivered on 7.3.2003 the defendant-respondent had closed his evidence. Therefore, there is no lack of diligence on the part of defendant-respondent No. 3 Dhian Kaur. It is well settled that all interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court are appealable under Order 43, Rule 1-A and naturally such orders could be subject-matter of challenge in appeal filed under Section 96 alongwith judgment and orders of the trial Court. Order 43, Rule 1-A reads as under : Order 43 : "1-A. : Right to challenge non-appealable orders in appeal against decrees - (1) Where any order is made under this Code against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, contend that such order should not have been pronounced. (2) In an appeal against a decree passed in a suit after recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded." A perusal of the afore-mentioned provisions would show that an order made under the Code against a party and if thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such a party by drawing the decree then such a party has been granted the right to challenge such an order in an appeal against such a decree. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge shows that interlocutory orders have been made for summoning Rakesh Kumar Gupta and the summons were received back undelivered. Therefore, the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1-A of the Code would be applicable. Hence, I have no hesitation in dismissing the instant petition. 4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Kamalam (dead) v. Ayyasamy, AIR 2001 SC 2802, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel does not advance the case of the plaintiff-petitioner. There is no issue with regard to the grant of an opportunity to a witness which was sought to be examined by the trial Court and the case has been remanded for that purpose by the first Appellate Court while hearing appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the argument raised on the basis of the afore- mentioned judgment is rejected. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.