- (1.) This is an application taken out by one Arunangshu Bhusan Paul for revocation of grant of Probate by this Hon'ble Court dated 2nd August, 1993. This application has been taken out sometimes in the month of September 2004. So, apparently this application is taken out after nearly eleven years. Ordinarily this kind of application should be dismissed on the ground of delay. Indeed this application has to be dismissed for the following facts and reasons as stated hereinafter :
(2.) The deceased testatrix is the mother of the applicant. By the Will another brother of the applicant was appointed executor. He obtained Probate of the Will. From the records I find that Probate was granted without any contest, as consent was endorsed on the application of grant of Probate.
(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that no citation either special or general was issued either, upon any of the heirs and/or legal representatives. It is pertinent to record that other heirs and legal representatives have not come forward to reopen the issue of grant of Probate which was given by this Court in 1993 still the petitioner takes other claimant's case. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot take step because the question of locus standi is there in order to maintain an application for revocation of grant. Therefore, each and every applicant has to approach to establish its locus standi. The petitioner has to establish its locus standi of its own way and I find that the petitioner has locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant. It is said in the petition that signature of endorsement of consent on the petition is not of the petitioner. It was a forged one. True upon comparison of the signature in the petition for grant of Probate with the signature of the consent endorsed in the original appplication for grant of Probate I find apparently both differ from each other. On that ground alone this Probate could have been revoked as the fraud and forgery, if practised in Court, has to be eliminated and resultant wrong has to be set at right, But this proposition of law is not an inflexible rule in all the cases, applicability thereof depends upon each and every, fact concerning conduct of the party complaining. Will it be applicable when it is found that the applicant has resorted to act of trickery and had taken benefit in this act of forgery?;