Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the orders dated 20-01-2016 and 26-04-2016, passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Chindwara, in Civil Suit No.5-A/2014.

2. Succinctly the facts stated in nutshell are that the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents submitting that in oral partition, the suit land and the other properties were allotted to late Smt. Leela Devi and respondent no.1. Late Smt. Leela Devi had adopted his nephew i.e. respondent no.1 and executed a will bequeathing her share in the joint property. After her death, petitioner no.1 and respondent nos. 1 and 2 had orally partitioned the joint properties and the suit land and one plot was allotted to him. He obtained the vacant possession of the suit land and the plot. His name is also recorded in the revenue records and he was in continuous possession as cultivating the suit land till he handed over the vacant possession to the second petitioner in the month of March, 2013 in pursuance of the transfer of the suit land to her through registered sale deed dated 01-12-2012.

3. The petitioners filed an application for permitting them to lead secondary evidence which was allowed by the trial court by order dated 12-03-2015. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 challenged the said order in W.P.No.5939/2015. The said petition was disposed of on 27-08-2015 permitting the petitioners to lead secondary evidence and it was observed that respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall be at liberty to raise all the objections at the time of final adjudication in regard to the admissibility of the photographs as secondary evidence.

4. Shri Balaji Devre (PW-2) is one of the attesting witness of the will (Ex.P1) and second attesting witness Late Shivkumar Gupta is dead. Shri Balaji Devre (PW-2) filed his affidavit in view of his examination in chief. On 04-11- 2015 in his additional statement, he has stated on oath that Late Smt. Leelabai had executed the will (Ex.P-1) and the signatures were duly marked by her but the said witness was not permitted by the trial court to prove the thumb impression of late Smt. Leelabai on the will (Ex.P-1) on the objections of respondent nos. 1 and 2, on the ground that the said witness had already stated in his affidavit that late Smt. Leelabai had affixed her thumb impression on the will (Ex.P-1). On 30-11-2015, the petitioners filed an application (I.A.No.8) before the trial court for recalling of the order dated 04-11-2015 and to permit Balaji Devre to identity the thump impression of late Smt. Leelabai on the will (Ex.P-1) and to mark it, but the trial court erroneously dismissed it. The challenge to the other order dated 26-04-2016 by which another objection of the respondents has been allowed as on 26-04- 2016 during the additional oral examination-in-chief of petitioner no.1, the trial court on the objection of the respondents did not permit the petitioner to state the name of the photographer and about the non availability of the negatives which were in custody of the said photographer, who had closed his business and left Chhindwara for an unknown place. In the backdrop of these facts challenge has been made to the orders impugned.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned while accepting the objections of the respondents. In regard to the first objection, he submitted that the attesting witness cannot be allowed to identify thumb impression of the testator, thumb impression can only be identified and proved by the expert and not by attesting witness. He further submits that since there was no pleading in respect of the name of the photographer and therefore, the trial court had rightly sustained his objection that the petitioner cannot be permitted to name the photographer in his deposition.

6. Having considered the rival submission of t