VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Kamal Deep Bhutani son of Shri Om Parkash, respondent in the present appeal, had filed a petition for issuance of Letter of Administration in respect of Will dated 13.2.1999 executed by the deceased Shri Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Kushal Chand, father-in-law of Shri Kamal Deep Bhutani. In the petition, the respondent impleaded General Public and relatives without disclosing particulars of any relatives. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, without taking steps to serve any person ordered the publication of notice in newspaper 'Dainik Chetna'.
(2.) AS no one appeared in pursuance thereto to contest the petition, the respondents were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.2.2001. On the basis of the ex-parte evidence led, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the Will executed by Shri Bhagwan Dass was duly proved. The respondent also prove the Will executed by his wife Vandana in his favour. The petition was accepted and a Letter of Probate was given in favour of the respondent in respect of the properties mentioned in the Will Exhibit P-1. It was also ordered that the letter of probate on furnishing of requisite stamp duty be issued. The appellant Shri Ramesh Kumar claiming himself to be son of Shri Hans Raj, real brother of Bhagwan Dass, filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 9.2.2001 and ex- parte decision dated 27.2.2001 vide which the Letter of Administration was ordered in favour of the respondent. In the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13, the case set up by the appellant was that no registered letter or summons were issued and directly publication was ordered in the newspaper which had no circulation in Rajasthan where the appellant was residing.
(3.) IT was also alleged that it was on 16.1.2002 that the appellant came to know about the said order and accordingly moved an application on 1.2.2002 i.e. within 30 days of knowledge. The said application was contested by the respondent herein by claiming it to be false and frivolous. It was also alleged that the application was time barred and the right of the appellant to contest the claim was also disputed.;