SMT. ALPANA PATRA Vs. RANJAN NIYOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The caveator, who has been arrayed as the sole respondent, is not represented despite service.

(2.) The appellant, a person not related to the alleged testator, propounded a Will and a caveat was lodged by the respondent herein. It appears from the several orders passed in the probate proceedings that the caveator may not have initially filed an affidavit in support thereof, but an affidavit was filed after the time therefor was extended by the probate Court.

(3.) The matter was set down as a contentious cause by an order of August 3, 2016. True to the lackadaisical sprit that is now all-pervading, neither the appellant nor the caveator made any requisition for drawing up or completing the order dated August 3, 2016, as a consequence whereof no testamentary suit number could be allotted to the contentious cause by the department.