SCA/26269/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 26269 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 26270 of 2007 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 26271 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= LAXMANBHAI PATHUBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus CITY MAMLATDAR - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PM LAKHANI for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR PD BHATE, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 in all the petitions. MS AMI BHATT for respondent No.2 in SCA No.26270/07 MR DN PANDYA for respondent No.2 in SCA no.26271/07 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 17/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/26269/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate Shri Lakhani for the petitioner who is common in all these three petitions. 2. The petitioner has instituted proceedings for obtaining probate in Misc. Civil Application No.124/03. In the said proceedings, despite public notice, no objections were received from any quarter. After passage of some time, the petitioner also moved an application pointing out to the Court that no objection has been received from any one. 3. It appears that some time thereafter, applications came to be filed requesting the learned Judge to permit certain parties to raise objections against grant of probate. By three separate orders, which are impugned in these petitions, such permission came to be granted. 4. It is not in dispute that objectors of Special Civil Application Nos.26270 and 26271 of 2007 had moved proper applications and sought permission to raise their objections. The learned Judge granted such permission observing, inter alia, that the objectors are residing at far away places from where the property is situated and they have made out a case that on account of time consumed for collection of necessary materials, it was not possible for them to immediately raise objections. The learned Judge also observed that the objectors SCA/26269/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT interest is connected with the properties in question. The learned Judge, therefore, found that they should be permitted to place their objections on record. 5. In so far as these orders are concerned, I see no reason to interfere. Even if at somewhat belated stage, the learned Judge permitted the objections to be taken on record, such discretion was exercised after verification of the material on record and when the learned Judge found that there were reasons which prevented the objectors from placing their objections on record earlier, I do not find any scope for interference. These petitions are therefore, required to be dismissed. 6. Insofar as Special Civil Application No.26269 of 2007 is concerned, learned advocate Shri Lakhani pointed out that the application seeking permission to place objections on record being application Ex.36 came to be filed by an advocate and such an application was not signed by any party. Name, address and other details of the objector were also not supplied. Despite the order being granted and despite this Court not having stayed the order, so far no such objections have been placed on record. To the above limited extent of contention made in Special Civil Application No.26269/07, I find that the grievance of the petitioner is justified. When the objector himself does not even disclose his identity and does not disclose his objections or SCA/26269/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT reason why he could not raise such objections earlier, application of such an objector could not have been granted. Learned advocate Shri Lakhani for the petitioner stated under instructions that till date, identity of the objector is not yet disclosed before the lower court and no formal application seeking to place such objections on record nor even any objections pursuant to the impugned order passed by the court below have been filed. Under the circumstances, Special Civil application No.26269 of 2007 is required to be allowed. 7. In the result, these petitions are disposed of in following manner: (1)Impugned order dated 29th September 2007 passed below Ex.36 in Misc. Civil Application No.124/03 which is under challenge in Special Civil Application No.26269 of 2007 is quashed. The said petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. (2)Special Civil Application Nos.26270 and 26271 of 2007 are dismissed for the reasons already recorded. It would be open for the objectors to present their objections before the learned Judge latest by 30th April 2008. Direct service of this order shall be effected by the petitioner on the respondents. SCA/26269/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)