1. Shri Neeraj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard.

3. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.11.2017 whereby the application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed by the Court below and Shri Surendra Gaur is permitted to be examined on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 being a witness to the Will.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed it on the ground that the Court below by order dated 26.10.2017 Annexure P-2 closed the evidence and fixed the matter for final hearing on 13.10.2017. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 3.11.2017 and the said application was erroneously allowed by the Court below.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain reading of application Annexure P-4 shows that the date and source of information regarding the availability of the proposed witness Shri Surendra Gaur is not pleaded and established. Thus, the defendant has not shown 'due diligence' before the Court below. Hence, the Court below has wrongly allowed the application by the impugned order. The entire attempt of the other side is to delay the disposal of the matter and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length.

7. The Court below has given a specific finding that the said High Court of Madhya Pradesh proposed witness Shri Surendra Gaur is witness of Will and therefore, he is a relevant witness under section 63 of the Succession Act and under section 67 of the Evidence Act. If the said relevant witness is permitted to be examined, it will not cause any prejudice to the other side. The Court below has also recorded a finding that w.e.f. 2002 Order 18 rule 17 of CPC was deleted from the statute book yet under section 151 of CPC, the Court below is competent/empowered to exercise its inherent power in the interest of justice.

8. Shri Dubey although did not dispute the competence of the Court below in exercising power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contended that the said power was not rightly invoked in the present case because the defendant's application was not pregnant with reasons/details which establishes 'due deligence'.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has taken a plausible view. If Shri Surendra Gaur is signatory/witness to the Will, it cannot be doubted that he is a relevant witness. Merely because the source of information about his availability was not shown in the application Annexure P-4., it cannot be said that Court below has committed any error of law in allowing the said application.

10. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. If the order suffers from any jurisdiction error, palpable perversity or procedural improprity, interference can be made. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. An order based on wrong facts and law also not liable to be interfered as a matter of routine. [See: Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shakar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329].

11. In the light of the aforesaid, in my view, no interference can be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.