Sl. No.: 6 v. SRI UNNATI PATRA

Judgment

1. This revisional application assails an order dated April 22, 2024 and an order dated August 30, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore in Revocation Case (O.S) No.03 of 2024. By the order dated April 22, 2024, the learned Court has stayed the further proceeding of letters of administration and by the order dated August 30, 2025, the petitioners’ application challenging the maintainability of the revocation petition instituted by the opposite party has been rejected.

2. The opposite parties have filed Revocation Case No.3 of 2024 seeking revocation of the letters of administration issued by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore in favour of the petitioner in Letter of Administration Case No.22 of 1967. In the said case, the petitioners filed an application challenging 2 maintainability of the revocation case, inter alia, on the ground that the said case was barred by limitation.

3. Learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioners’ application challenging maintainability of the revocation case by holding that the revocation case is maintainable and that the same shall proceed for adjudication in accordance with law.

4. One Nirmal Kumar Mandal had applied grant of Probate in respect of a Will executed by his father Sital Chandra Mondal, since deceased. The said proceeding for grant of probate became contentious and was therefore registered as O.S Suit No.22 of 1967. The said application for grant of probate was ultimately allowed on contest by an order dated September 7, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore.

5. It is the petitioners’ case that after the order granting probate was passed the Executor of the will died and as such the petitioners applied for grant of letters of administration in the same O.S. Case No. 22 of

6. Upon such application being made letters of administration was ultimately granted to the petitioner on August 8, 2018. Subsequently, the opposite party filed an application for revocation of the said letters of administration which was registered as Revocation Case No.3 of 2024. The said case alleges that the Will in 3 respect whereof probate letters administration had been granted was a forged one.

7. In the said case the petitioner took out an application challenging maintainability of the revocation

case on two principal grounds. The first ground is that the grant of Probate, which was the main grant was never assailed and that being so, the challenge thrown to the ancillary and consequential grant could not have been entertained by the learned Court. The second ground is that the revocation proceeding is barred by limitation. Such application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Hence the present revisional application.

8. Mr. Banerjee learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the opposite party could not have filed and maintained an application laying challenge to the grant of letters of administration inasmuch as the same was an ancillary grant tethered to the principal grant of probate. In support of his contention Mr. Banerjee relies on a Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay in Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe, reported in 2001 SCC ONLine Bom 178.

9. He next cites a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe, reported in (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 284 to demonstrate that the 4 aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. He further relies on a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjula and Others vs. D. A. Srinivas reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 831 to contend that for the purpose of deciding as to whether a plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code or not, along with the averments of the plaint the documents referred to in the plaint which form the basis of the plaint are required to be looked into by the learned Trial Court.

11. The next point which is urged by Mr. Banerjee is that the application for revocation is hopelessly barred by limitation. Mr. Banerjee contends that the application is one to which the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply. He submits that in such view of the matter, even if it is assumed that a challenge to the letters of administration is otherwise maintainable, then also the opposite party ought to have filed the application for revocation within a period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action that is from the date of grant. It is submitted that in this case the letters of administration was granted in the year 2018 and as such the proceeding initiated in the year 2024 is barred by limitation.

12. In support of his above contention he relies on the judgements of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and 5 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat (supra). He additionally cites a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs. Kirandeep Kaur & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 463 to assert that in such proceedings Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies.

13. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the petitioners’ application challenging the maintainability of the revocation case without deciding the aforesaid issues.

14. Mr. Kundu, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the bar of limitation to the revocation case filed by the opposite party would not apply inasmuch as the probate case was concluded only in the year 2018 and not prior thereto and the opposite party got knowledge about the Will much later upon summons of Title Suit No.928 of 2021 instituted by the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 10th Court at Alipore, being served on the opposite party.

15. He further relies on a judgement of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Estate of Kalpana Das Neogi represented by Ashoke Kumar Das vs. Dipali Das Neogi & Ors. reported in 2012 SCC ONLine Cal 12647; in support of his contention that a probate case 6 would remain pending till such time the stamp duty is fully put in/ paid.

16. He further submits that the petitioners have themselves put in the stamp duty in the year 2014 which is more than two decades after the grant of probate. It is submitted that the revocation case is not barred by limitation since the opposite party’s case is based on fraud and the period of limitation in cases of fraud begins to run from the date of knowledge.

17. Mr. Banerjee learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that the opposite party’s contention that he got knowledge about the Will only from the suit instituted in the year 2021 is not correct inasmuch as the opposite party duly appeared in another suit being Title Suit No.93 of 2024 that had been instituted by the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 10th Court at Alipore arraying the opposite party herein as a defendant no.8 in the said suit.

18. Mr. Banerjee further submits that during pendency of the revisional application the opposite party has filed another case being Revocation Case No.7 of 2025 seeking revocation of the grant of probate that was done in the year 1986. He submits that such revocation case would not be maintainable on the ground of limitation as also on the ground that the appropriate remedy thereagainst would be in the form of an appeal 7 under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act inasmuch as the grant was one on contest.

19. Heard Learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

20. Having gone through the order impugned, this court finds that the learned Trial Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether the proceeding for revocation of letters of administration initiated by the opposite party is barred by limitation or not. The aspect as to whether in the facts of the case the issue of limitation would be a pure question of law that can be decided without adduction of evidence or a mixed question of law and facts requiring evidence can be determined only if the learned Trial Court refers to such issue. If upon a meaningful reading of the plaint along with the documents which have been referred to in the plaint and which form the basis of the plaint a conclusion can be reached then the issue need not wait till the stage of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 29 (vi) of the judgment in the case of Manjula & Others (supra) after discussing several other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point.

21. The other point urged that without challenging the principal grant no challenge to ancillary grant would be maintainable also does not appear to have been answered by the learned Trial Court while dealing with 8 the petitioner’s application challenging maintainability of the revocation case.

22. It is noted that a challenge has also been mounted to the grant of probate by filing Revocation Case No. 07 of 2025. The learned Trial Court would be required to take into consideration the effect of the said Revocation Case No. 07 of 2025 while deciding the challenge to the case for revocation of letters of administration on the point that ancillary grant has been challenged without challenging the principal grant.

23. The judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat (supra) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a clear authority on both the points that a proceeding would not be maintainable if the principal grant is not challenged and if the same is barred limitation under Section 137 of the 1963 Act.

24. While there is substance in the submission of the opposite party the probate proceeding continued till such time that the stamp duty was paid yet, the question as to whether the proceeding is barred by limitation or not would still require to be answered since the probate proceeding ultimately concluded in the year 2018.

25. Since the learned Trial Court has not adverted to the aforesaid issues at all, it would not be proper for this Court to decide the same at the first instance in exercise 9 of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same must be decided by the learned Trial Court only at the first instance. As the said issues have been left undecided, the order impugned deserves interference.

26. For all the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned dated August 30, 2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the learned Trial Court to reconsider the petitioner’s application challenging the maintainability of Revocation Case (O.S.) 3 of 2024 afresh in accordance with law.

27. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter and that no opinion has been expressed by this Court either on the maintainability of any of the two revocation cases or on the merits of the application challenging the maintainability of Revocation Case No. (O.S) 3 of 2024. All points are left open to be urged by the parties and to be decided by the learned Trial Court in the light of the law governing the field.

28. It is further pointed out by Mr. Banerjee that by an ex-parte order dated April 22, 2024 passed on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the opposite party, the learned Trial Court has stayed the further proceeding of letters of administration. 10

29. Since, the said application is still pending before the learned Trial Court, this Court requests the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, at Alipore to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the next date fixed without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

30. The parties shall be at liberty to pray for preponment of the hearing of the said application which prayer may be considered by the learned Court according to the convenience of the learned Court.

31. With the aforesaid observations C.O. 4047 of 2025 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Om Narayan Rai, J. )