D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. - (1.)THIS Appeal arises from an Order dated 30 August 2011 of a Learned Single Judge. The order has been passed when a report submitted by the Additional Registrar (O.S.) dated 9 March 2011 came up for hearing. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would be necessary to extract the order of the learned Single Judge as it stands and which reads as follows :
"1. After hearing Counsels on both sides, it appears that the parties are disputing over the many orders which are sought by the Administrator. It appears that evidence will have to be recorded in order to have the distribution of the various items. This is being stated when I called upon the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 to hand over the ornaments to the Administrator, so that they can be distributed as per the desire of the Testator, he submitted that the items are already with the other side and not with them. If this is the position, matter requires consideration only after recording of evidence. Adjourned to 10.10.2011 for recording of evidence. 2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to file evidence affidavit. Affidavit filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 is taken on record."

(2.)A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the second and third Respondents to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground that the impugned order does not constitute a judgment, since it does not decide upon the substantive rights of the parties.
Kesarbai Ramdas died on 26 March 1995. During her life time, she had executed a will on 2 September 1972 and three Codicils respectively on 1 November 1980, 4 August 1989 and 29 March 1990. The second and third Respondents who are named as Executors applied for probate only of the will and not of the codicils on 1 February 2000. The First Appellant who is also a daughter of the deceased took out an Originating Summons on 11 August 2006 for a direction that a probate be issued both of the will and of the first and the second codicils and that the third codicil be declared as invalid. On 16 June 2007 probate has been granted in respect of the will and the first and the second codicils.

(3.)ON 16 October 2008, the first Appellant together with one Mansinh Ramdas (original Petitioner No. 2, since deceased) filed a Petition for removal of the second and third Respondents as Executors on the ground that they failed and neglected to administer the estate of the deceased since her death on 26 March 1995 and after the grant of the probate on 16 June 2007. The Petition came up before the learned Single Judge on diverse dates including 25 August 2010 and 27 September 2010. It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, an effort was made to explore as to whether the estate could be amicably administered since the parties are closely related. Eventually an order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 28 September 2010. The Order of the learned Single Judge deals in detail with various items forming part of the estate of the deceased. While issuing directions in regarding to the administration of the estate, the learned Single Judge directed that if those acts and deeds are not completed within a period of two weeks, the present executors shall be taken to be removed and in their place, the Prothonotary shall depute an officer of the Court to act as a sole executor to complete the administration of the estate of the deceased. As regards the items of jewellery, the learned Single Judge issuedthe following directions :
"A number of items of jewellery and silverware except four items have been distributed. A receipt in that behalf has been passed by Petitioner Nos.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) and Respondent No.4 and one Sonali Munjal. The four items of jewellery, which are stated not to have been distributed, shall have to be distributed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of two weeks from today."
Apart from this, it would appear that there was a dispute with regard to certain shares. Among them were shares of Wipro Limited. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 28 September 2010 issued the following directions in regard to those shares :
"There has been a lot of dispute with regard to the shares of Wipro Limited. The original 960 shares were with the Petitioners. The Petitioners shall hand over those shares to the executors forthwith. The other shares, which were bonus shares have been in the custody of the executors. All the shares of Wipro Ltd., including all bonus shares and the dividends received or accepted thereon and all other income therefrom shall be transferred or transmitted to the beneficiaries as per the ratio mentioned in the Will/Codicils. The executors shall write a letter to the Company in that behalf within two weeks from today."
Since the estate was not administered in accordance with the directions of the learned Single Judge, the second and third Respondents stood removed. The Prothonotary accordingly appointed the Additional Registrar/Additional Prothonotary as administrator in terms of the directions issued by theCourt. Several meetings took place before the Additional Registrar(O.S.). Eventually the Additional Registrar(O.S.) in his capacity as Administrator filed a report dated 9 March 2011 seeking the following directions :
"In view of above, I seek Your Lordship's directions as follows : (A) Executrices i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be directed to hand over jewellery mentioned at item nos. 1 and 2 above to me for distributing the same to the beneficiaries as per Will and Codicils of the deceased. Or (B) Executrices i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be directed to produce Receipt in respect of jewellery mentioned at item nos. 1 and 2, it is already handed over to the Petitions. (C) Executrices i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be directed to furnish details in respect of discrepancy of balance amount in the Pass Book of Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill Branch, in saving Bank Account No. 209, since the said amount is not tallied with the amount mentioned in order dated 28.09.2010. (D) All the aforesaid Shares of Zenith Ltd., Standard Batteries and Wipro Ltd. be distributed to the beneficiaries as per the Will. Or (E) The aforesaid Shares of Zenith Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. Be distributed as per the share of the Deceased in the said Shares, as stated on behalf of the Executors i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (It is stated that deceased had 50% share in the said shares.). (F) Executrices i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to disclose the maturity amount of UTI Bonds 64 deposited with Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill Branch. (G) maturity amount of U.T.I. Bonds 64, in the Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill branch, be distributed to the beneficiaries as per the Will. Or (H) Maturity amount of U.T.I. Bonds 64, in the Union Bank of India, Cumballa Hill branch, be distributed as per the share of the Deceased in the said bonds as, stated on behalf of the Executors i.e. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 (It is stated that Deceased had 50% shares in the said Bond). (I) Petitioners and Executors/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to disclose remaining estate of the deceased in detail to enable the undersigned to distribute the same as per Will of the deceased."