the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the Will was marked through the attestor D.W.2; immediately thereafter, D.W.3, an official witness, i.e. the then Deputy Tahsildar, being in old age, was examined. Learned counsel further submitted that the sixth defendant was set ex-parte on 24.08.2009 and she filed application in I.A.No.295 of 2009 in O.S.No.285 of 2008 to set aside the ex-parte order and she also filed I.A.No.296 of 2009 in O.S.No.285 of 2008 seeking leave to file additional written statement. Both the applications were taken up for enquiry and they were allowed only on 12.06.2012. Only thereafter, D.W.1 was cross-examined and subsequently, D.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and their examination is also completed. Thereafter, without any delay, the revision petitioners/D2 and D3 have filed the application seeking leave of the Court to examine them as D.W.4 and D.W.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the factual aspects, dismissed the application. He further contended that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC, will not apply to the facts of the present case and he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/D2 and D3, relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court (Madurai Bench) reported in 2008 (1) CTC 36 (Ravi Vs. Kumar), wherein, the Division Bench observed as follows:
