ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. As per the Office Report, service is complete but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent. 3. The appellant as well as the respondent both claim to be the legally wedded wife of one late Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee. On his death, the respondent has filed probate proceedings before the District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. The appellant filed an application in those probate proceedings disputing the status of the respondent. It is not necessary to give details of the previous rounds of litigation between the parties before the District Judge, the High Court and this Court. Suffice to say that while the appellant had filed Special Leave Petition before this Court in the matter of rejection of an application for amendment of written statement, the Trial Court closed the evidence and rejected the appellant’s request to adjourn the matter. The appellant then filed another application before the Trial Court to allow her to cross-examine the respondent, which was also dismissed. She again approached the High Court but vide impugned order dated 21.09.2022, the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s Revision Petition, declining her request to cross-examine the respondent and one more witness, namely, Suren Gogoi. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. The High Court, to some extent, has rightly observed that the appellant has been moving one after the other application as a result of which the probate proceedings, filed by the respondent, have been unnecessarily prolonged. At the same time, a plea has been taken before us that the appellant on account of her fragile health is now staying at Ranchi (Jharkhand) with her brother and has not been able to defend herself properly in the probate proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on carefully perusing the material placed on record, it appears to us that the ends of justice would adequately be met by granting only one opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the respondent and another witness, namely, Suren Gogoi, whose examination-in-chief has already been recorded. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part and the learned District Judge, before whom T.S. (P) No. 43/2010 is pending, is directed to give only one opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the respondent and another witness, namely, Suren Gogoi within a period of three weeks. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part and the learned District Judge, before whom T.S. (P) No. 43/2010 is pending, is directed to give only one opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the respondent and another witness, namely, Suren Gogoi within a period of three weeks. In case the appellant fails to cross-examine the witnesses, no further opportunity shall be granted. Similarly, no request to adduce additional evidence etc. on behalf of the appellant shall be entertained. 7. As a result, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.