49-NMT-53-2013.DOC JSN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.53 OF 2013 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.237 OF 2009 WITH MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.54 OF 2010 WITH TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.282 OF 2010 WITH MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.104 OF 2013 Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Mrs. Veena Jaswant Shah & Ors. …Respondents Ms. Smita Patel, Constituted Attorney of Petitioner in person. Mr.Sandeep Barve, i/b B.K. Barve & Co. for Respondents. CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 6th June 2016 PC:- 1. Ms. Smita Patel appears for Constituted Attorney of Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta, the original Plaintiff in Testamentary Petition No.237 of 2009. There was earlier a great deal of controversy about whether Ms. Patel was entitled to represent Mr. Page 1 of 4 6 June 2016 49-NMT-53-2013.DOC Mehta as his Constituted Attorney. The matter was carried to the Division Bench in Appeal. That Appeal was decided on 28th April 2016 by a Division Bench of which I was then a member and which wad headed by Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari. It is stated before me that Mr. Mehta’s opponents have since carried that matter in by way of a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court and that this SLP is to be listed on 29th June 2016. 2. It is true that it is a result of that Division Bench order that these matters are placed for directions today before me and it is because of that appellate order that I am at all able to grant Ms. Patel a hearing. As of today, however, there is no restraint against my hearing Ms. Patel or any order preventing her from representing Mr. Mehta. I do not think it is necessary to accept the application for an adjournment simpliciter because the directions that I propose to pass today cannot possibly result in any sort of determination of any of the issues. The matter itself will undoubtedly have to be posted after 29th June 2016, and that, I think, should suffice. 3. Testamentary Petition No.237 of 2009 was filed by Mr. Mehta for probate to his mother’s Will. That Petition succeeded. A Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010 is filed for revocation of that probate by one Veena Jaswant Shah. Ms. Veena Shah had herself filed a Testamentary Petition No.282 of 2010 also propounding the Will of a same deceased, but one that was of an earlier point in time. On account of probate being granted to Mr. Mehta in his probate Petition No.237 of 2009, which propounded a later Will, there was no question of probate being granted to Veena Shah in her probate Petition No.282 of 2010. There is, however, a Miscellaneous Page 2 of 4 6 June 2016 49-NMT-53-2013.DOC Petition No.104 of 2013 filed by Mr. Rajendra Mehta in Veena Shah’s Testamentary Petition. In addition, there is Notice of Motion No.53 of 2013 filed by Mr. Mehta in Veena Shah’s Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010. 4. To my mind, the logical starting point is Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010. Should that Miscellaneous Petition fail, then the probate granted to Mr. Mehta will undoubtedly hold the field and all the other applications will be infructuous. On the other hand, if that Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010 succeeds, then, necessarily, the probate granted to Mr. Mehta will stand revoked and Ms. Veena Shah’s Testamentary Petition No.282 of 2010 will necessarily have to proceed. Everything therefore hinges on the outcome of Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010 and this should be logically our starting point. Having regard to the nature of the controversy, it seems to be necessary that for a quick and focused disposal of the Miscellaneous Petition, issues should be drawn in the Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010, so that parties can address themselves precisely to those issues and can lead evidence, if necessary, on those issues alone. I note that in 2014, there appears to have been some evidence taken in Testamentary Petition No.282 of 2010. I will for the present keep that on hold and proceed instead, for the reasons already indicated, with Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010. 5. In her Notice of Motion No.53 of 2013 as also in a submission that she hands up today, Ms. Patel seeks various directions including in regard to the issuance of witness summonses and production of certain papers. These however seen to relate to the proceedings in Page 3 of 4 6 June 2016 49-NMT-53-2013.DOC Testamentary Petition No.282 of 2010 and Miscellaneous Petition No.104 of 2013. It may not be necessary to have these directions issued at this stage since I am not taking up that matter first. Should Ms. Patel require such directions in Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010 she will of course, be at liberty to make an application for that purpose. That, however, will follow after issues have been properly framed so that all concerned may know exactly the issues to which they must address themselves. 6. Given the nature of the proceedings I would request both sides to draw up draft issues. I must insist that these be limited to the ones that are necessary for proper determination of Miscellaneous Petition No 54 of 2010. Drafts should be exchanged in advance. 7. List all these matters together on 4th July 2016 under the caption of framing issues, it being understood that issues will be framed in Miscellaneous Petition No.54 of 2010 on that date. (G. S. PATEL, J.) Page 4 of 4 6 June 2016