MANJU MITRA Vs. ANIL KRISHNA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE propriety of an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Barasat in O. S. No. 48 of 2008 on 27th July, 2009 vide Order No. 20, is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the defendants/petitioners. The instant revisional application arises out of a probate proceeding which became contentious as one of the petitioners namely Mrs. Manju Mitra objected to the grant of probate of the will dated 5th May, 2006 left by Harihar Mitra since deceased. The opposite party who is the propounder of the said will is represented by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel.

(2.) BY the impugned order at least three applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the learned Trial Judge. In one of such applications the defendant Manju Mitra prayed for setting aside of the ex-parte hearing of the said suit. In the other petition she had shown cause as to why no step could be taken on her behalf in the said suit before the learned Trial Judge on 5th May, 2009. In the other petition the petitioners prayed for issuance of direction upon the propounder to serve a photostat copy of the purported will dated 5th May, 2006 of Harihar Mitra with a further direction upon the sherestadar of the learned Trial Court for giving inspection of the purported will dated 5th May, 2006 of Harihar Mitra to the petitioners, so that an effective written statement can be filed by the petitioners herein within such time which will be fixed by the learned Trial Judge after furnishing a copy of the will and after offering inspection of the said will to the petitioners. All these three applications were disposed of by the learned Trial Judge by the common order which is impugned herein. The first two applications of the petitioners were rejected by the learned Trial Judge and as a result, the suit was not taken off from the ex-parte board of hearing and the written statement filed by the defendants/petitioners beyond time was not accepted by the learned Trial Judge.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge also held that in this set of facts the petitioners prayer for inspection of the will need not be considered and the net effect thereof amounts to virtual rejection of the petitioners prayer for inspection of the said will.