ORDER : 1. This petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing order Annexure 'A' dated 02.01.2020 made on I.A.No.XX in O.S.No.2/2011 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi." 2. Heard. 3. Smt. Thanima Bekal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the petitioners are the owners of the suit schedule property based on the Will executed by one Anthony, brother of the petitioners, husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the said suit, the respondents filed a written statement, issues were framed and the petitioners examined the witnesses to prove the Will. It is submitted that the petitioners filed an application to furnish the list of witnesses they proposed to examine by seeking condonation of delay. The Trial Court, considering the same, rejected the said application solely on the ground that the application was filed belatedly at the stage of arguments. It is further submitted that the witnesses sought to be examined are very much necessary to prove the contents of the Will and the burden to prove the Will is on the petitioners. It is also submitted that as per the list of witnesses referred in the application, the first witness is the family member of the petitioners, the respondents and deceased Anthony, witness No.2 is the friend of deceased Anthony, witness No.3 is the employee working with deceased Anthony and defendant No.1, and witness No.4 is the brother of the petitioners and witness No.5 is the Doctor who treated deceased Anthony to demonstrate that there were strained relationship between the deceased Anthony and the respondent No.1. The said Anthony was in the care and custody of his sister and the entire bills with regard to his treatment were incurred by the other family members and he was residing separately from the respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that these witnesses are very much necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. However, the Trial Court, without appreciating the same, rejected the application solely on the ground that the application is filed after the closure of the evidence and the matter is posted for arguments. It is submitted that these witnesses are very much necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. However, the Trial Court, without appreciating the same, rejected the application solely on the ground that the application is filed after the closure of the evidence and the matter is posted for arguments. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by providing one opportunity to the petitioners to examine the said witnesses to enable them to prove their case before the Court. 4. Per contra, Sri.Arun S., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the issues in the suit were framed on 12.12.2011 and within 15 days of framing of the issues, such an application would have been filed but the application was filed belatedly after more than 7 years without explaining a single line for the delay. It is submitted that sufficient evidence is adduced by the petitioners to prove the Will. Hence, seeking to examine further witnesses would not arise. The Trial Court has rightly considered the same and rejected the application. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 6. The petitioners filed O.S.No.2/2011 which is pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Udupi. The relief sought in the said suit is for a declaration that the petitioners are the absolute owners and the said declaration is sought based on the alleged Will said to have been executed by one Anthony on 11.11.2009. The respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Anthony. They filed written statement denying the execution of the Will by the deceased Anthony. The Trial Court has framed the issues. To prove the case, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1, the consenting witness as PW-2, the deed writer as PW-3 and the Doctor as PW-4. The respondents adduced the evidence on their behalf. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.20 under Order XVI Rule 1 and Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to condone the delay in filing the application and permission to examine the list of witnesses furnished in the application. The respondents adduced the evidence on their behalf. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.20 under Order XVI Rule 1 and Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to condone the delay in filing the application and permission to examine the list of witnesses furnished in the application. The Trial Court, considering the said application, rejected the same solely on the ground that it was filed belatedly. 7. The affidavit accompanying the application indicates the reason and ground for examination of those witnesses. Ultimately, it is the case of the petitioners who are required to discharge the burden by proving the issues framed in the suit. There is a burden on the petitioners to prove issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. To discharge the said burden, the petitioners have laid a foundation by pleading with regard to the execution of the Will and thereafter, examined 4 witnesses. Though the application is filed belatedly, in my considered view, if the petitioners are allowed to examine the witnesses referred in the application, there would be an end to the controversy involved with regard to the execution or non-execution of the Will by the deceased Anthony. A specific averment is made in the petition as well as in the affidavit that the relation between the deceased Anthony and the contesting respondents herein were not good and he has executed the Will in favour of the petitioners. That being so, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice demands that the application is required to be allowed to prove the assertion made in the pleadings. However, the same shall be on terms. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 02.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.20 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.2/2011, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.20 is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be payable by the petitioners to the respondent Nos.1 to 4. (iii) The petitioners shall examine the listed witnesses without seeking any unnecessary adjournment before the Court.