ASN 1 Appeal-756.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.756 OF 2011 Vijaylaxmi Bhagwan Tawde and anr. ..Appellants. Vs. Kalpana Digamber Bagwe and ors. ..Respondents. Ms.Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.A.Shah and Mrs. Purvi Asher and Ms. P. P. Choksi and Mr. Ajinkya Patil i/by M/s.Mansukhal Hiralal & Co. for the Appellants. Mr. D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Preteik Parija i/by M/s. Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 02 DECEMBER 2011 PC: This appeal is directed against the order dated 11 October 2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in unnumbered Notice of motion taken out by the appellant in Suit Lodging No.2800 of 2011. By the impugned appeal all the parties i. e. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties. 2) The plaintiffs have challenged the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of the suit properties. Defendant No.1 purportedly acted as sole heir and next to kin ASN 2 Appeal-756.sxw of deceased one Vandana and obtained Letters of Administration in respect of the properties of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ case is that in spite of the fact that they are alive, the defendant No.1 had obtained the Letters of Administration in respect of the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs have therefore, filed revocation petition being Revocation Petition (L) No.1321 of 2011 in Testamentary Petition No.1302 of 2010 and Revocation Petition No.1320 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition No. 610 of 2010. By order dated September 26, 2011 the learned Judge in revocation petition has noted that both the plaintiffs are alive and identified their identity on the basis of their respective original pass ports and their respective election cards. 3 On the basis of the above documents, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of the properties there is no case for injuncting the appellants from dealing with their own property and they cannot be required to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties. 4 The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the order dated 26 September 2011 of the learned Testamentary Judge merely contains prime facie opinion and that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not parties to the revocation petition. It is further contended that they had no opportunity to raise any contention before the learned Testamentary Judge for taking a different view in the matter. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs if the ad interim order requiring the respondents to maintain status quo is granted. ASN 3 Appeal-756.sxw 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that interests of justice will be served if this appeal is disposed in terms of the following directions: a) Notice of Motion in Suit Lodging No.2800 of 2011 shall be heard along with Revocation Petitions Lodging No.1320 of 2011 and 1321 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 29 February 2012. b) Ad interim directions given by the learned Trial Judge on 11 October 2011 requiring the appellants-plaintiffs to maintain Status quo in respect of the suit properties shall continue till 30 March 2012 or till the disposal of the revocation petition, whichever is earlier. c) In case the Notice of Motion in Suit Lodging No.2800 of 2011 is not heard till 15 March 2012, it will be open to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to move this Court for appropriate order. d) All the matters to be heard by the Testamentary Court. e) It is clarified that Notice of Motion giving rise to the present appeal is ordered to be heard along with revocation petition only because respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein cannot be heard in the Testamentary Petition for revocation of the Letters of Administration. However, they ASN 4 Appeal-756.sxw would have the knowledge of facts in the said petition to make their claim upon the appellants herein or upon respondent No.1 herein as circumstances require. f) It also needs to be noted that having regard to the nature of the alleged fraud played by defendant No.1 in the suit/ Respondent No.1 in the Revocation Petition, it may not be possible for the present plaintiffs to serve her personally. The plaintiffs in the above suit as also in the Revocation Petition shall effect the service upon defendant No.1 by substituted service by publication in one English and/or Vernacular newspaper. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE ` ( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )