Calcutta High Court
Krishna Murari Modi(Decd.) vs Unknown on 24 August, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
GA No. 2371 of 2016
RVWO No. 30 of 2016
In the goods of:
KRISHNA MURARI MODI(DECD.)
PLA No. 21 of 1988
IN THE GOODS OF:
KRISHNA MURARI MODI (DEC.)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 24th August, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Joyjit Ganguli, Adv.
Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Shuvashis Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Balarko Sen, Adv.
Mr. Subhasis Banerjee, Adv.
The Court :- GA No. 2371 of 2016 is an application in a
review petition being RVWO No. 30 of 2016.
Both the application as well as review petition taken
up for hearing together.
Learned Advocate for the review applicant submits that
the review applicant had applied for inspection of the documents from this
Hon'ble Court by a writing addressed to the Registrar, Original Side, dated May
11, 2016. Inspection of the documents was not given. Consequently, the review
application was not apprised of the correct facts for it represent the same
before the Court in the application for substitution. He submits that, after
enquiry the review applicant has come to learn that the substitution of the
deceased as well as consequential amendment was allowed by the order dated
August 10, 2010 passed in GA No. 2135 of 2009. Learned Advocate for the review
applicant further submits that, the order dated July 27, 2016 should be reviewed
as unless the same is reviewed the review applicant will not be in a position to
take appropriate steps in the matter since the Court has returned a finding that
the proceedings has abated.
2
The respondents, in that review application, are
represented.
It appears from the records that GA No. 2135 of 2009 was an application for substitution of the Applicant in GA No. 2701 of 2007. GA No. 2701 of 2007 was an application for revocation of grant of probate made in PLA No. 21 of 1988. By an order dated August 10, 2010 GA No. 2135 of 2009 was allowed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the Notice of Motion relating thereto. Necessary amendment was directed to be carried out within four weeks from the date of the order.
GA No. 2701 of 2007 has not been amended in terms of the order dated August 10, 2010. The review applicant did not take any steps to implement the order dated August 10, 2010.
So far as the request for inspection of the records are concerned, the review applicant had written a letter dated May 11, 2016 to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court requesting inspection. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits on instructions that the learned Registrar did not allow the inspection. The alleged non-grant of the inspection of the records has not prejudiced the review applicant, in any manner. It had obtained the order for amendment on August 10, 2010. It took no steps thereafter till the letter of May 11, 2016 when he sought inspection. This conduct on the part of the review applicant is not appreciated.
I find no reason to review the judgment and order dated July 27, 2016.
GA No. 2371 of 2016 and RVWO No. 30 of 2016 are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
snn.