Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Krishna Murari Modi (Dec) vs Unknown on 18 May, 2017

Author: Soumen Sen

Bench: Soumen Sen

                                        ORDER SHEET
                                     GA No.1702 of 2017
                                             With
                                      PLA No.21 of 1988
                              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction
                                       ORIGINAL SIDE


                                      IN THE GOODS OF:
                                 KRISHNA MURARI MODI (DEC)




        BEFORE:
        The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN

Date : 18th May, 2017.

Appearance:

Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Adv.
The Court : This is an application for revocation of a probate dated 27th September, 1988. A prayer is made for adjournment on the ground that the service is not complete. The learned counsel representing the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court as to why this application for revocation of the grant of probate dated 27th September, 1988 should at all be allowed to proceed in the year May, 2017 as the application was affirmed on 8th May, 2017. Surprisingly, all the paragraphs to the petition have been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that the mother of the petitioner was coerced to execute a deed of gift and the probate was obtained by perpetrating fraud, apart from the fact that the particulars of fraud are vague and unsubstantiated. On a reading of the petition it appears that the incident alleged for which the petitioner is now seeking for revocation of leave has taken place long ago, apart from the fact that petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. The petition also lacks in material particulars.
Under such circumstances, GA No.1702 of 2017, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) B.Pal