SHRI HARI DAS PAUL Vs. SHRI CHITTARANJAN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - In this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.90 passed by the District Judge, Guwahati, in Probate Miscellaneous Case No. 308 of 1989.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that his maternal uncle (Mother's brother) Romoni Mohan Paul executed a Will. Romoni Mohan Paul died on 5.5.88. On 28.8.89 the petitioner applied for grant of probate in respect of the said Will, in the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. Both special and general citations were published in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondent on 26.9.89 filed an application in the Court of the District Judge, requesting to implead him as a party respondent in the said probate proceeding. His claim was that he was one of the heirs of deceased late Romoni Mohan Paul. He was also one of the owners of the said properties, as he was the adopted son of late Romoni Mohan Paul. He further stated that he was necessary party in the case and he ought to have been impleaded as heirs under the provisions of law.

(3.) The District Judge invited objection against the prayer of the respondent and the petitioner filed objection challenging his right to be impleaded. Date was fixed for hearing of the objection. However, on the date fixed i.e on 17.3.90, the respondent did not appear in Court nor he took any steps. The Court, therefore, dismissed the impleadment application filed by the respondent. On 23.4.90 the respondent filed an application stating that he was ill at the time of filing the petition. He also stated that he took a wrong date, therefore, he failed to attend the Court on the date fixed. He prayed for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.3.90 passed by the District Judge. Against this petition, the petitioner filed objection. In the objection the petitioner stated, inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable, being rime barred. He also denied that the petitioner was ill. The petitioner also stated that the respondent intentionally and willingly allowed the ex parte order to be passed against him in order to harass the petitioner and put him in trouble. Therefore, the petition for setting aside the order dismissing the petition should be dismissed.