(1.) THIS Appeal arises from an Order dated 30 August 2011 of a Learned Single Judge. The order has been passed when a report submitted by the Additional Registrar (O.S.) dated 9 March 2011 came up for hearing. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would be necessary to extract the order of the learned Single Judge as it stands and which reads as follows :
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the second and third Respondents to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground that the impugned order does not constitute a judgment, since it does not decide upon the substantive rights of the parties.
(3.) ON 16 October 2008, the first Appellant together with one Mansinh Ramdas (original Petitioner No. 2, since deceased) filed a Petition for removal of the second and third Respondents as Executors on the ground that they failed and neglected to administer the estate of the deceased since her death on 26 March 1995 and after the grant of the probate on 16 June 2007. The Petition came up before the learned Single Judge on diverse dates including 25 August 2010 and 27 September 2010. It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, an effort was made to explore as to whether the estate could be amicably administered since the parties are closely related. Eventually an order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 28 September 2010. The Order of the learned Single Judge deals in detail with various items forming part of the estate of the deceased. While issuing directions in regarding to the administration of the estate, the learned Single Judge directed that if those acts and deeds are not completed within a period of two weeks, the present executors shall be taken to be removed and in their place, the Prothonotary shall depute an officer of the Court to act as a sole executor to complete the administration of the estate of the deceased. As regards the items of jewellery, the learned Single Judge issuedthe following directions :