PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 21.07.2016, vide which his application for summoning Mahendra as a witness was rejected.

2. It is contended by counsel for the defendant/petitioner that Mahendra was a witness to a Will, and therefore, was an important witness, who could not be produced as he was away from the town for more than fifteen years, which fact was also brought to the notice of the court by moving an application on 18.09.2014. It is also contended that though the burden to prove that the Will was forged is on the plaintiff, still the defendant/petitioner wants to produce the witness.

3. In support of his contentions, counsel for the defendant/petitioner has placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Pramod Kumar Jain, 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1016 and Om Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Karnataka, 2013(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1199.

4. Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has opposed the writ petition. His contention is that the defendant's evidence was closed on 16.08.2013 on his own request and the case was fixed for final arguments. On 15.09.2014, time was granted to file written arguments and the case