Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Jain v. Kamla Prasad Jain, (1972 BLJR 18). In that case, the decision of the court below refusing to substitute the executor in place of the testator, the original plaintiff, who had died during the pendency of the suit, on the ground that no Probate had been granted in respect of the will and staying the hearing of the suit till the disposal of the probate case was set aside by this Court in revision and the court below was directed to substitute the petitioner in place of the original plaintiff and, thereafter, to proceed with the suit. The argument of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that in view of the provisions of Sec. 213 of the Act, no right as an executor can be established in a court of law and so the petitioner was not entitled to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff, was negatived by Anwar Ahmad, J, in these words:--

"It is not possible for me to accept this contention of learned counsel in view of the fact that there is a vital difference in between establishing a right in Court of law on the basis of a Will which is unprobated and the right of being substituted in place of the original plaintiff which the petitioner seeks to enforce as an executor of the Will executed by the sole plaintiff."

14. The learned lawyer for the petitioners attempted to distinguish this case on the ground that it related to the substitution of an executor, but that is a distinction without a difference, because Section 213 of the Act applies both to the executor and a legatee alike and the decision proceeds upon a construction of the expression 'right' occurring in Section 213 of the Act, the ratio being that the said expression does not include the right of being substituted in place of the original plaintiff.