JUNE ALDONS Vs. THERESA BROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) Ratlam in Misc. Civil Case No. 3 of 2003 refusing to reject the application for grant of Letters of Administration filed by non-applicant No. 1.

(2.) Non-applicant No. 1 on 25.1.1994 applied for grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of Late Noel Brown. She claimed that being sole beneficiary under the Will dated 21.1.1975 said to have been executed by Noel Brown her late husband, she is entitled exclusively to the bequeathed estate. Learned Court below issued Citation, and in response, present applicant along with her husband (non-applicant No. 2 herein) filed objections and denied the claim of non-applicant No. 1. One of the objections she took that present application out of which this revision arises was not maintainable because non-applicant No. 1 withdrew her earlier application for same relief in respect of same estate on 22.9.1986 without liberty to institute fresh proceedings. Subsequent application, therefore, is not maintainable being hit by provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Court below based upon aforesaid objection, framed additional issue Nos. 3 and 4 and by the order impugned answered them against applicant. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for applicant referred to Order XXIII, Rule 1 sub-rule(4) of the Civil Procedure Code and submitted that application for Letters of Administration is in the nature of civil suit. In view of provisions contained in section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to such application with full force. He therefore, contended that the Court below erred in law in holding that notwithstanding the earlier compromise leading to withdrawal of earlier application without liberty, subsequent application was maintainable. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/beneficiary supported the order impugned and submitted that no interference is warranted with it.