Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER by Shri A. S. Garg, Senior Advocate with Shri Sapnesh Jain, Advocate. Respondent No. 1 by Shri Mahak Agrawal, Advocate. Respondent No. 7 by Shri Pramod Mitha, Govt. Advocate. ( 2. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-2011 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class II, Sardarpur in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2009, whereby application filed by the respondent for de-listing the name Shri Onkar Singh Sisodia, Advocate as witness was dismissed, present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Will was executed by deceased Sajanbai in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that since the Will was signed by Onkar Singh Sisodia as witness, the respondent No. 1 moved an application for de-listing the name of Onkar Singh Sisodia from the arrey of witnesses. The application was opposed by the petitioner but the same was allowed and the name of Onkar Singh Sisodia was de-listed on the ground that since Onkar Singh Sisodia was Advocate of the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to examine as witness of the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that Onkar Singh Sisodia was the scribe of the Will therefore, his evidence was necessary and his name cannot be de-listed. It is submitted that Onkar Singh Sisodia was Advocate for petitioner once upon a time. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. ( 3. ) SHRI Mahak Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submits that since Onkar Singh Sisodia was the Advocate of the petitioner and was knowing it well that he may be examined therefore, he cannot be examined by the petitioner. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Jhanak vs. Santosh, reported in ILR(2008) MP 310, wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that Advocate accepting, brief and conducting matter knowing fully well that he is likely to be cited as witness on material point, he cannot subsequently withdraw from suit and appear as witness. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below rightly passed order in favour of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. ( 4. ) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that Onkar Singh Sisodia was net the counsel for petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below rightly passed order in favour of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. ( 4. ) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that Onkar Singh Sisodia was net the counsel for petitioner in the present case. Since he was scribe of the Will, therefore, his name was shown by the petitioner in the list of witnesses. So far as law laid down in the matter of Jhanak (supra) that is altogether different on facts as in that case Advocate was appearing in that very case as Advocate of one of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in passing the impugned order. In view of this petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.