- (1.) IN spite of service no appears on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept with the record.
(2.) THIS is an application for restoration of the revisional application, which was dismissed on 1st August 2011. The cause for non-appearance on the said date when the matter was dismissed for default has been shown in paragraph 2 of the said application which I find to be sufficient. Hence, the order dated 1st August 2011 is hereby recalled. The application, being CAN 8984 of 2011, is allowed. The revisional application is restored to its original file and number. The revisional application is taken up for hearing. This revisional application is directed against Order No. 6 dated 23rd August 2004 passed by the District Delegate, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Act 39 Case No. 91 of 2004 (P) by which an application for grant of probate is returned to the learned Advocate for presentation before the District Judge.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, an application for grant of probate is filed by one of the executor, being the petitioner herein, before the District Delegate. After general citation, learned Government Pleader, for Administrator General of West Bengal, appeared and filed objection to the grant of probate. Section 286 of the Indian Succession Act provides that a District Delegate shall not grant probate in a case where there is a contention as to the grant; and the word -contention- has been defined in explanation appended thereto to include any person who appears, either in person or through authorised agent, to oppose the proceeding. Section 288 of the said Act further provides that in the event there is a contention, the District Delegate shall return to the person, by whom the application is made, for its presentation before the District Judge. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that the District Delegate has proceeded in the manner, as has been envisaged under Section 288 of the Indian Succession Act. Thus I do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order.;