- (1.) One Nagendra Bala Devi died leaving a Will. The applicant claims to be the propounder of the said Will. According to the applicant he was the "Viksha Putra" of the deceased whereas the opposite party submits that he was the lawyer of the deceased.
(2.) However, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly objects to the above fact being recorded as according to him the aforesaid fact has not found place in any of the pleadings.
(3.) After the death of the testatrix her daughter-in-law Smt. Ashalata Ganguly sold the property belonged to the deceased to the opposite party by a deed of sale. When the probate proceeding was initiated Ashalata initially contested the said probate proceeding by filing written objection. However, during the pendency of the probate proceeding she died. The opposite party wanted to participate in the said proceeding stepping into the shoes of the Ashalata. The issue was once brought to this Court by way of a revisional application which was disposed of by an order dated August 7, 2004 appearing in pages 25-28 of the present application. While disposing of the said application His Lordship observed that since Ashalata filed written objection before the Court below, the opposite party would have to base his objection on that and he would not be entitled to file any fresh objection. The opposite party was however granted leave to disclose documents ''in respect of any contention". The relevant paragraph of His Lordship's judgment is quoted below : "However as I have already held that they cannot be permitted to file written objection on their own therefore, must not proceed on the basis of the written objection already filed on behalf of the Ashalata Ganguly. However, if it is necessary in the interest of justice to produce any document in respect of any contention, the opposite parties may be permitted to produce the same and the learned Court below shall consider the same in accordance with law. Since the probate proceeding is pending since 1993 it is expected that the learned Court below shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of eight months from the date of communication of this order.";