ORDER :

IN SCA-10874 OF 2018

1. By preferring this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed below Exh.36/1 dated 03.01.2018 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara giving liberty to respondent/objector for cross-examination of petitioner and producing evidence after 19 years and six months.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Learned advocate for petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed below Exh.36/1 dated 23.06.1998 to reopen the rights of the respondent to cross-examine the petitioner is clearly illegal and erroneous as the application Exh.55 was given by respondent on 13.07.1998 to implead him as party. It is further submitted that as objector/respondent was there in the proceedings as objector, such a permission cannot be granted after passing of 19 years by the Court-below. It is further submitted that respondent had also filed Special Civil Application No.2425 of 1999 to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of probate application which was dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that Civil Revision Application No.1351 of 1999 was preferred against the order passed below Exh.55 was also dismissed by the Court and application Exh.55 was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh hearing vide order dated 30.01.1999. It is further submitted that however, chief examination of petitioner was submitted on 01.05.1997, application to reopen the rights for cross-examination was given at a very late stage on 23.06.1998. It is further submitted that petitioner had filed closing pursis vide Exh.33 on 01.05.1997 and no prayer was made by respondent herein to permit him to cross-examine petitioner. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.01.12018 passed below Exh.36/1 permitting respondent herein to cross-examine petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Menashi Rajabhai Kathad Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 (2) GLR 1412;

(ii) Vadiraj Naggapa Vernekar (D) through Lrs. Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate reported in 2009 (4) SCC 410;

(iii) K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in 2011 (11) SCC 275;

4. From the other side, learned advocate appearing for respondent has submitted that no illegally is committed by learned Trial Court in granting permission to cross-examine the petitioner as per the order passed below Exh.36/1 dated 03.01.2018. It is further submitted that in the probate application preferred by petitioner, the present respondent herein was not party. It is further submitted that as per the order passed below Exh.55, on 25.09.1998, respondent herein was permitted to participate in the proceedings and objections preferred against respondent were ordered to be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that against the order passed below Exh.55 on 25.09.1998, the present petitioner challenged the order before learned Extra Assistant Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal No.430 of 1998. It is further submitted that said Misc. Civil Appeal preferred by petitioner was not considered on merits and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh hearing of application Exh.55 by providing opportunity to the Santram Temple Trust if they so chose vide order dated 30.01.1999. It is further submitted that the said order was challenged by the present respondent in Civil Revision Application No.1351 of 1999 before this Court, wherein the order passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.430 of 1999 by the Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara was confirmed and Revision Application was dismissed in limine. It is further submitted that the Trial Court decided the application Exh.55 afresh and vide order dated 08.08.2014, application Exh.55 was partly allowed and objections taken by respondent were ordered to be recorded and considered. It was further ordered that objectors have right to take part in the proceedings of probate applicat