DOLOGOVINDA PRADHAN Vs. BHATRUHARI MAHATAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for grant of letters of administration was made in the Court of District Judge. Cuttack which was registered as a Miscellaneous case. On 30th July, 1987, near relations of the deceased as mentioned in the petition entered appearance and filed a memorandum through their Advocate that they have no objection for the grant of probate in favour of the Petitioner. Thereupon, the petition was admitted on 3 8 -1987. Fixing 18 -9 -1987 for hearing, learned. District Judge directed to issue notice to Defendants for appearance on that date. Requisites having been filed for issue of citations, Process Server affixed notices on the front door of the residence of the deceased at Ramgarh, in the Notice Boards of the District Judge. First Munsif and Collector. Collector, Cuttack was also issued notice for giving a report as the valuation of the assets as mentioned in the petition whose copy was enclosed to the notice. On 18 -9 -1987, learned District Judge was satisfied that general notice and citations were received after publication. However, the Misc. case was posted to 20th October, 1987 for the Petitioner to prove service and awaiting the valuation report from the Collector. Learned District Judge transferred the case to the Court of the First Sub -judge, Cuttack for disposal in accordance with law since he was the District delegate. On 3 -11 -1987, learned Subordinate Judge fixed the Misc. case to 26 -11 -1987 for being. On 26 -11 -1987, learned Sub -judge posted the Misc. case for bearing one after the other date till 20 -4 -1988. Valuation report having been received in the meantime, on 20th April, 1988, the matter was fixed to 11.5 -1988 for bearing on valuation report. On 11 -5 -1988, valuation report given by the Collector was accepted. However, on 22 -6 -1988. the case was posted to 18 -7 -1988 for hearing on valuation matter. Without bearing on valuation matter on 18 -7 -1988, learned Subordinate Judge directed to call the case on 19 -8 -1988 for hearing. On 19 -8 -1988. applicant was present with his witness. Petitioner filed an application for being permitted to intervenes by being impleaded as a party which was resisted by the applicant. However, applicant was given time to file objection to the petition for prevention. On 22 -8 -1988, applicant filed objection to the petition for intervention. Rejoinder was also filed by the Petitioner on the next date and the matter was fixed to 13 -9 -1988 for hearing. For three continuous dates Petitioner prayed for adjournment and the matter was posted to 7 -2 -1989 for hearing. That day also, Petitioner filed application for adjournment on account of illness but the same was rejected and the application for intervention was also rejected. On the next day, Petitioner filed an application to recall the order and on 9 -2 -1989, to Which date the misc. case was posted for hearing, order was recalled. Petition for intervention was heard and was posted to 28 -2 -1989 for orders. On 28 -2 -1989, Petitioner filed some documents and the case was posted to 8 -3 -1989 for orders. Impugned order having been passed that day rejecting the petition for intervention and posting the matter to 3 -4 -1989 for hearing, this Civil Revision has been filed. On 3 -4 -1989, the Misc. Case has been posted to 4 -7 -1989 for hearing.

(2.) THE Will sought to be probated in the present case is alleged to be the last Will of late Hare Krushna Mahatab executed on 4 -6 -1960. On the death of the testator on 2 -1 -1987. petition has been filed on 18 -7 -1987. Late Mahatab was conferred degree to be called Dr. Hare Krushna Mahatab which gives an idea about his learning. From the records, it is seen that he was Governor of a State which indicates his eminence. In the Will he expressed to have bequeathed all his properties without giving details of such properties. In the petition for letters of administration specific properties have been listed in respect of which letter of administration is prayed for. One item of property at Cuttack has been the cause for intervention by the Petitioner.

(3.) AS I find, provisions of the Act have been followed more in not following the object of the same. When the learned District Judge considered the question of issue of notice on 3 -8 -1987. he did not take into consideration whether citations are to be issued. He only directed issue of notice to the Defendants on that date. Office, however, thought that citations are to be issued and the Process Server was entrusted with the service of notice. No objection can be taken for the Process server fixing the notice on the front door of the deceased, although, the District Judge should have passed a specific order to that effect to be the manner of publication of the citation. A Process Server has no control over the notice boards either of the District Judge or of the First Munsif or of the Collector. It is not known how the Process. Server could fix the notice in these Notice Boards. Process -server ought to have handed over the notices to the Officer -in -charge of the Notice Boards and reported the fact and these officers should have' reported that they have caused the notice published being affixed in the Notice Boards. When caveats, though called for were not filed, a specific order should have been passed that there being no contention on or before the date fixed, the proceeding is not required to be disposed of as a suit. The petition for grant of letters of administration would indicate that the properties listed are in districts of Cuttack, Balasore and Puri. It is not known how the Collector, Cuttack alone could report with regard to valuation of assets in all the districts. Rightly, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the proceeding for' hearing on the question of a report of valuation. However, the order sheet reveals that the learned Subordinate Judge has not applied his mind thereafter. On some date, he accepted the valuation report and another subsequent dates he fixed the proceeding to be heard on the question of valuation of report.