ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.1.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed on application filed under Order 18 rule 17 CPC whereby prayer to recall the plaintiff for his further cross-examination on the documents which were shown and exhibited during cross-examination of defendant's witness Himendra (DW-1) and similarly another order dated 21.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed on application under Order 17 rule 1 CPC whereby right to examine defendant's witness Narendra, who is a attesting witness of the Will disputed in the instant Civil Suit has been closed. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present suit RCS No. 49-A/2022 which has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the learned trial Court challenging the Will dated 8.3.2014 which was executed by mother of the plaintiff in defendant's favour. Learned senior counsel further submits that plaintiff did not file any document with regard to showing health condition of the mother before execution of the aforesaid Will neither with the plaint nor after filing of the plaint under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC and these documents were directly filed at the time of cross-examination of the defendant's witness Hemendra, therefore, defendant has no occasion to cross-examine or ask any question on these documents, therefore, this application under Order 18 rule 17 was filed. That application should have been allowed to afford reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the defendant also. Learned trial Court has rejected the application which is bad in law as it is directly affecting the rights of the defendant to defend himself properly. Hence, prays for allowing the application by setting aside the impugned order and recalling the plaintiff Jayesh only to put questions with regard to the documents which have been shown and admitted through the defendant's witness Hemendra during his cross-examination. 3. Similarly, learned counsel also assailed the impugned order dated 21.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) whereby right to produce attesting witness of the Will namely, Narendra has been closed. 3. Similarly, learned counsel also assailed the impugned order dated 21.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) whereby right to produce attesting witness of the Will namely, Narendra has been closed. Learned senior counsel submits that if petition is allowed, plaintiff will come for his cross-examination with regard to the aforesaid documents, therefore, closing right of the defendant (petitioner herein) to examine attesting witness is also not proper and it is not going to adversely affect the plaintiff, rather it will adversely affect the defendant if he could not examine attesting witness as Will is required to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness as provided under section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which provides that document which is required to be attested shall not be used as evidence unless it is proved by calling at least one attesting witness. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the petition by setting the impugned orders and directing the learned trial Court to call plaintiff for re-examination on those documents mentioned as herein-above and also afford one opportunity to examine attesting witness of the Will. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that documents which were shown and admitted while cross-examining the defendant witness Hemendra were neither produced with the plaint nor after that with the application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC before recording of plaintiff's evidence, therefore, defendant was not having any occasion to cross-examine the plaintiff with regard to the aforesaid documents which relates to the health status of the executant of the Will. 6. In the considered view of this Court, in such a situation, to afford reasonable and and proper opportunity of defending to the defendant in the suit, application under Order 18 rule 17 of CPC should have been allowed and plaintiff should have been recalled for further cross-examination by the defendant only with respect to the documents which were filed during cross examination of the defendant witness Hemendra. 7. 7. Similarly, the another impugned order dated 21.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) is also erroneous in view of this Court for the reason that Trial Court will provide opportunity to the defendant for cross-examining the plaintiff and thereafter if opportunity to examine attesting witness Narendra is given, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff, rather it will assist the Court in adjudicating the real controversy involved in the case, therefore, learned trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application under Order 18 rule 17 of CPC and closing the defendant's right to examine the attesting witness. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.1.2026 (Annexure P/1) and 21.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the application under Order 18 rule 17 of CPC is allowed. The trial Court is directed to call plaintiff for further cross examination with regard to the documents as mentioned herein-above which have been filed during cross-examination of the defendant witness and further one opportunity will be given to the defendant to examine any of the attesting witness of the Will as per sweet will of the defendant. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed off.