Judgment 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners (plaintiffs) made application (exhibit 132) for permission to examine Krishna Bhonde who is attesting witness to Will dated 15.3.1980 produced by defendant. Defendant on 13.2.2014 kept in attendance both the attesting witnesses. However, he examined only one out of two attesting witnesses viz. Rambhau Bagde and gave up other attesting witness viz. Krishna Bhonde. 3. Learned trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the matter is old and the suit is already fixed for final arguments. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if remaining attesting witness to the Will is examined and petitioners are ready to bear the expenses for summoning that witness. 5. Learned counsel for respondent (defendant) supported the impugned order. He contended that such application was not tenable at the final argument stage. 6. In my considered view, application should have been allowed by the trial Court. After all, if both the attesting witnesses to the Will are available and examined, it would facilitate the trial Court to resolve the dispute in general and decide upon the validity of Will appropriately and effectively if remaining attesting witness, who is available, also is allowed to be examined. Needless to say, respondent (defendant) would get opportunity to cross-examine him. Hence, the impugned order will have to be set aside. 7. In the result, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Application of petitioners (plaintiffs) is allowed. Learned trial Judge shall summon Krushna Bhonde as plaintiffs’ witness or court witness, if it so deems fit, at the costs of plaintiffs and grant due opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine him. Rule is made absolute in these terms with no order as to costs.