1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.33 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.88 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1078 OF 2007 Mahesh Nanabhai Bhatt .. Petitioner Versus Mark Uppaluri .. Caveator Mr.None present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th August 2009. P.C.: 1] None present for parties. Perused the motion, affidavit in support and reply. The relief claimed by the petitioner in this notice of motion is that the caveat dated 31st August 2008 filed by the Caveator be dismissed. 2] The petitioner who has filed this motion states that he is the 2 executor named in the will dated 1st July 2005 left behind by the deceased. He has applied for issuance of probate of the will. The caveat is filed by the Caveator on the basis that he is the son of the deceased. The caveator is objecting the will on the ground that the appointment of Executor is not genuine. He is also challenging the exclusion of Male beneficiaries. Several reasons are assigned in the affidavit in support of this notice of motion but what is apparent to me, from a reading of para 5 thereof is that the case of the Caveator is that the will is not genuine and valid and the petitioner urges that the will is genuine. It is urged that the caveator was aware that he was to be kept out of the benefits of the estate. 3] All these are contested and arguable issues. I do not see how the caveat can be dismissed when the caveator is the son of the deceased and has disputed the will. Notice of Motion is misconceived and is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)