Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,J. - (1.) The affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
(2.) The present challenge is directed at the instance of propounders of a will against two orders. The probate application filed by the petitioners turned contentious, upon the opposite party no. 1 having contested the same, and was registered as a suit. The said suit reached the argument stage and arguments were concluded. Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer of the said court could not dispose of the matter and the same was transferred to another court, where it was to start from the stage of arguments again. At this juncture, the opposite party no. 1, who has been contesting the probate, took out an application captioned under Order XVI Rule 1(2), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for calling one Mr. Tapan Mitra, who was one of the attesting witnesses of the will, as a witness to adduce evidence, by issuance of summons through the court. In the said application the only grounds which were mentioned for such prayer were that the plaintiffs had invited only one witness to adduce evidence in spite of other witnesses being available and that the present opposite party no. 1 was desirous to call the said witness to adduce evidence.
(3.) By the first impugned order dated July 16, 2018, the probate court allowed such application, on imposition of costs. Subsequently, the opposite party no. 1 took out an application for extension of time to deposit the costs, which was allowed upon imposition of additional costs by the second impugned order dated November 29, 2018.;