Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 13, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1060025

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1060025
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Nadira Patherya
Decided On: Aug 13, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....one’s eyes to the affidavit in support of the caveat which has become a part of the record of this court. accordingly, no order can be passed treating pla 1.of 2002 as a non-contentious cause. in view of the affidavit filed in support of the caveat, let the same be treated as written statement and the application for grant of probate be treated as plaint. let pla 1.of 2002 accordingly be treated as a contentious cause and be numbered accordingly. let the said be effected by the department within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. as no copy of the affidavit in support of the caveat has been received by the applicant herein, let a copy of the affidavit in support of the caveat be furnished to the applicant executor. this order is passed in view of the records produced by the department before this court. the applicant will be at liberty to mention the matter for early hearing before the appropriate court. report filed by the department be kept on record. in view of the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. department and all parties to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. ( patherya, j.) pa

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET GA No.2872 of 2012 PLA No.10 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction IN THE GOODS OF: BIMAL SARKAR (DECEASED) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :

13. h August, 2013.

Mr.Tridib K.

Sarkar, Mr.S.Balial for the petitioner.

The Court : By this application the petitioner seeks grant of probate in terms of order dated 29th August, 2007.

In the said order it was recorded that no affidavit in support of the caveat had been filed by the caveator and it was on this premise that by the said order the petitioner was directed to be entitled to obtain probate as a non-contentious cause.

In couRs.of hearing of this application the department was directed to submit a report.

Such report has been filed and from a reading thereof it appears that not only was a caveat filed by the caveator Sr.Bijon Sarkar but an affidavit in support of the caveat has also been affirmed on 23rd December, 2003 and filed on 24th December, 2003.

The said affidavit in support of the caveat has also been produced in Court.

Therefore, one cannot shut one’s eyes to the affidavit in support of the caveat which has become a part of the record of this Court.

Accordingly, no order can be passed treating PLA 1.of 2002 as a non-contentious cause.

In view of the affidavit filed in support of the caveat, let the same be treated as written statement and the application for grant of probate be treated as plaint.

Let PLA 1.of 2002 accordingly be treated as a contentious cause and be numbered accordingly.

Let the said be effected by the department within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

As no copy of the affidavit in support of the caveat has been received by the applicant herein, let a copy of the affidavit in support of the caveat be furnished to the applicant executor.

This order is passed in view of the records produced by the department before this Court.

The applicant will be at liberty to mention the matter for early hearing before the appropriate Court.

Report filed by the department be kept on record.

In view of the aforesaid, this application is disposed of.

Department and all parties to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.

( PATHERYA, J.) pa

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2013 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge Nadira Patherya