1 CST.108.11-TS.64.06-TP.784.06.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 108 OF 2011 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 64 OF 2006 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.784 OF 2006 Minaxi Kishore Mehta ...Plaintiff Vs. Kiron D. Sanghvi & Ors. ...Defendants/Caveators Mr. Shailesh Shah a/w. Mr. N. Engineer a/w. Ms. Sonal i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for Plaintiff Mr. Rohan Cama a/w. Mr. Aditya Shiralkar a/w. Mr. Mahesh Gondhe i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Company for Applicant Mr. Sunil Gangan i/b. RMG Law Assoc., for Defendeant No.2 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the affidavit- in-support of Caveat. That delay is of 18 days. However the application for the condonation itself is grossly delayed. This Chamber Summons is taken more than 4 years after the affidavit in support has been filed and kept on record for want of condonation of delay. 2. There has been dispute between the parties in the administration suit filed by the Caveator also being Suit No.457/2005. 2 CST.108.11-TS.64.06-TP.784.06.sxw 3. Mr. Shah on behalf of the Plaintiff states that the Caveator’s conduct has been reflected in an observation of this Court in para No.13 of an order passed upon willful disobedience of an order of injunction earlier passed. He has drawn my attention to the order dated 3rd May 2007 where it is observed that the Caveator made every attempt to defeat the order of the Court. 4. In this case he filed the caveat which is filed as a corollary to his administration suit itself which is for administration of the estate of his mother upon intestacy. The Caveator would, therefore, require to show his challenge to the Will. He would not, therefore, delay showing his challenge to the Will as that would not enable him to succeed in defeating the Plaintiff’s claim. The Will would be probated. Consequently, the Court cannot be prejudiced by an earlier order. 5. His case is that his Advocate did not pursue making an application for having the delay condoned in filing the affidavit in support of the Caveat. He has now instructed another Advocate to take out this application. Of course his allegations against his previous Advocate cannot be taken lightly. He can be allowed to defend the Testamentary Suit, therefore, only upon payment of costs upon condonation of the gross delay which in terms has been for more than 4 years. 6. Upon the Caveator paying the costs of Rs.25,000/- within 2 weeks from today, the affidavit in support of the Caveat filed by him on 14th 3 CST.108.11-TS.64.06-TP.784.06.sxw November 2006 shall be accepted on record as his defence in the Testamentary Suit. 7. The Chamber Summons is disposed off accordingly. 8. Defendant No.2 who is present in person filed an affidavit withdrawing his Caveat. His Caveat shall stand withdrawn. 9. The suit is adjourned to 7th September, 2011. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)