1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8436 OF 2009 Shri Balkrishna Dnyanoba Bargaje .. PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Kusum Tukaram Bargaje & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge, Advocate with Mr. N.I. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate holding for Mr. D.R. Korde, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19 th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Application tendered by the respondents seeking condonation of delay in presenting application requesting for revocation of probate granted earlier in favour ob the petitioner herein came to be allowed by Adhoc District Judge – 2, Osmanabad in view of order dt. 30-8-2008 and the said order is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 It transpires from record that the petitioner herein who is the son of 2 brother of deceased Tukaram appers to have secured a will deed from deceased Tukaram thereby bequeathing the property in his name. On demise of Tukaram, application was tendered for grant of probate by petitioner Balkrishna and on consideration of the application which was uncontested the trial court directed issuance of probate. Respondent no. 1 who claims to be the second wife and respondent no. 2 who is her son have raised objection to grant of probate in favour of the petitioner herein by presenting miscellaneous application to the District Court. There occurred delay in presenting such application and as such another application seeking condonation of delay was presented. It is contended by the respondents herein in the application that they reside at Pune and had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated by Balkrishna. Respondents raised serious doubt as regards the authenticity of the will deed. Trial court after considering the relevant circumstances has allowed the application. 3 Considering the fact that the respondents herein reside at Pune, they obviously had no reason to know about the presentation of application by the petitioner herein claiming grant of probate in his favour. The question involved in the matter is in respect of immovable property which the petitioner claims to have acquired on the strength of will deed. 3 Respondents have raised serious doubt as regards the authenticity of the said will deed and the same is required to be gone into by the court below after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties to submit evidence in support of their respective contentions. Order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be unjust or improper and as such no interference is called for in the instant petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8436.09.odt