I.P. Mukerji, J.

A short question arises for consideration in this application. The plaintiff, in a contested testamentary suit, to obtain probate of the alleged last Will and Testament of Sajani Devi Bhartia, wants an order from this court that the two attesting witnesses to the Will be examined on commission. These two attesting witnesses are: (a) Ajay Bhargava, Partner, Khaitan & Co., Advocates, 1105 Ashoka Estate, 24 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001. (b) Sharad Vaid, Partner, Khaitan & Co., Advocates, 1105 Ashoka Estate, 24 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110 001.

It is opposed by the caveators.

Some knowledge of the background is necessary.

Sajani Devi Bhartia, the testatrix was the wife of Mohan Lal Bhartia. In or about 2007 she was physically in a very poor condition. She could hardly move. Her husband was also ill with heart disease. On 2nd February, 2007 he was taken to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre in New Delhi for treatment. On 8th March, 2007, both husband and wife executed their respective last Will and Testament. Probate to the husband’s Will was taken from this court on 10th September, 2009 in an uncontested cause. Initially a caveator had been filed a caveat objecting to the grant of probate to this Will. Subsequently it was withdrawn.

But the wife’s Will executed the same day has been challenged in these proceedings. Mr. Choudhuri, the learned Advocate for the defendants/caveators laid great emphasis on the event of the husband being taken to USA, on 9th March 2007 for treatment, just one day after execution of the alleged Will.

On enquiry from the bar I found out that the wife did not accompany the husband. He lived for exactly one year thereafter, breathing on last 10th March, 2008. The wife lived for another year. She expired on 11th May, 2009.

The caveators have challenged the Will on many grounds. First of all, they have alleged that the Will was not executed by the testatrix at all. It is a forged document. Secondly, they have alleged that the Will is a product of fraud, coercion, undue influence etc. practised on the testatrix by the propounders of the Will.

According to learned counsel for the caveators these intricate questions have to be resolved in this suit. The evidence of the attesting witnesses is most important. To extract the truth the examiner has to be face to face with the witness. The demeanor of the witness should be observed closely by the court and counsel. Panchkari Mitra Vs. Panchanan Saha & Ors. reported in AIR 1924 Calcutta 971 was cited by Mr. Choudhury. Mr. S. N. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate leading Mr. Choudhury supplemented that if this probate proceeding could be filed in Kolkata, there was no reason why all the witnesses should not be examined in this court.

It is argued on behalf of the propounders that the attesting witnesses are lawyers practising in New Delhi. They are very hard pressed for time. Their time is valuable. A lot of their time would be utilized by their visiting Kolkata, this High Court and waiting for their turn to come to depose in this Court.

Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioner replied that the main property of the testatrix was situated in Kolkata and that is why the probate proceeding was instituted here.

Now, the law on the subject has to be examined.

What is examination of a witness in a court of law? It is part of our system of trial. It is a procedure by which the truth is sought to be elucidated. Examination of a witness in a Court involves his oral examination by the party producing him followed by his cross-examination by the other party and re-examination, if necessary, by the party producing him. (see Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

A witness is asked oral questions. He is shown documents, he is shown objects, accounts, drawings maps etc. to prove their authenticity. He is asked a host of questions, by learned counsel for the party producing him to establish that party’s case. When, that is over, he