Civil Revision No. 1141 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1141 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.05.2009. Darshan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Piari and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. H.P.S.Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. While allowing a probate plea on the basis of will Ex. P1 in favour of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court ordered that the issuance of probate shall be on furnishing of indemnity bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.30 lacs, with one surety in the like amount. The grievance of the petitioner is qua the latter part of the order which required him to furnish surety in the like amount. Heard. The learned Trial Court ordered the issuance of probate on the basis of a registered testamentary disposition Ex. P1 which was duly proved at the trial by the statement of Sardul Singh, one of the attesting witnesses and the own statement of petitioner as PW- 1.Any order passed by the Judicial Court must not be of a character Civil Revision No. 1141 of 2009 -2- **** which can be termed as onerous to the party who is beneficiary thereunder. In this case, the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner herein to furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.30 lacs with one surety in the like amount with an undertaking “that he will administer the property in question and to make a full and true inventory of the said property and credits and exhibit the same to this Court within six months from the date of this grant of Probate or within such further time as the Court may from time to time appoints and also render to this Court the true account of the said property and credits within one year from the same date or within such further time as the Court may from time to time appoints.” The quoted part of the order takes care of the interests of justice for ensuring that the property in question is not squandered or wasted in any manner. There was no justification to put the rider of the furnishing of a surety. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the latter part of the impugned order requiring furnishing of the surety in the like amount shall stand quashed. Disposed of accordingly. May 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge