1 MP-45 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Miscellaneous Petition No.45 of 2010 IN Petition No.5 of 1993 Mrs.Ingred Helen Manezes .. .. Deceased And Mrs.Eveelyn Brendan D Lima .. Petitioner V/s. Manoj Koli & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.Harihar Bhave i/by Bhave & Co. for Petitioner. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 21st December, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Respondents have obtained a probate of the Will of one Peter Michael Quiney dated 16th December 1990 in the aforesaid Testamentary Petition No.5 of 1993. The Petitioners claim to be the heirs of the deceased who are not shown in the Petition as such heirs. The Petitioners claim revocation of the grant on that ground alone. The Petitioners are the two children of the only brother of the deceased one Anthony Charlie Quiney, who survived the deceased. That brother has since expired. The Petitioners have produced his Death Certificate. 2 MP-45 2.Mr.Bhave on behalf of the Petitioners has shown me paragraph 9 of Petition No.5 of 1993. The typewritten portion of paragraph 9 shows that the Petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein) was the only heir as an adopted son of the deceased who died a bachelor. That paragraph has been amended. The handwritten amendments in red show that the parents of the deceased pre- deceased the sister and the deceased left no brothers and sisters. It is claimed that the later portion of the amendments is incorrect. The deceased is stated to have left one brother, Anthony Charlie Quiney. The deceased was Peter Michael Quiney. The said Anthony filed Suit No.2126 of 1993 in the Bombay City Civil Court in respect of certain liquor licence against the Respondents. 3. During the pendency of that suit, he expired on 23rd January 2004. Accordingly, the title of the suit came to be amended. The present Petitioners were shown as the legal representatives who were brought on record as the Plaintiffs in the suit. Respondent No.1 had notice of that fact. 4. The Respondents herein filed their Written Statement in that suit on 11th August 1995. The Respondents inter alia mentioned about the probate obtained by Respondent No.1 herein. Hence the Petitioners had knowledge of the 3 MP-45 said probate from 11th August 1995. The Petitioners have sought to revoke the probate granted only on 8th July 2009. The Petition is, therefore, barred by the law of limitation. 5.Hence the Petition is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)