S.C. Gupte, J. This appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 28 January 2011 dismissing a Miscellaneous Petition for revocation of probate granted by this Court in a Testamentary Petition in favour of the First Respondent 888/1999.

2. In the Testamentary Petition, the First Respondent, as executor of the last will and testament dated 15 October 1990 of Pranlal Sunderji Doshi, applied for probate. Pranlal died on 30 March 1991, and left him surviving as his only heirs the following persons: Respondent no.1 as the widow, Respondent No.2 as the son, the Appellant as another son and two daughters. Pranlal had appointed the Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as trustees and executors of his last will and testament. Respondent no.1 had filed an application for probate of the will. In the application, the Appellant filed an affidavit dated 12 September 2003 signifying his consent to his mother, Respondent no.1, applying alone for probate of the last will and testament of his deceased father. Probate was accordingly granted on 24 November 2003 in favour of Respondent no.1.

3. On 6 April 2008, the Appellant filed a Petition for revocation of probate. It was the case of the Appellant that: (i) Respondent no.1 was guilty of mismanaging the affairs of the properties left behind by the deceased; (ii) Respondent no.1 has not given effect to the directions contained in the will despite the passage of five years since the probate; and (iii) Respondent no.1 has not filed the inventory and account of the properties and credits mentioned in Schedule no. I of the probate petition. The Appellant, in the premises, applied for cancellation and revocation of the probate granted in favour of Respondent no.1. The Appellant also applied, as consequential reliefs, for directions for inventory and accounts upto the date of the petition from Respondent no.1 and appointment of the Appellant as an executor through a fresh probate.

4. On 9 December 2010, the Appellant amended the Petition by incorporating a challenge to the genuineness of the will of the deceased. It was claimed by the Appellant in the amendment that the signature of the deceased differed from a specimen of signatures of the deceased available with the Appellant.

5. The learned Single Judge in her impugned order noted that the revocation petition was wholly misconceived. The learned Judge observed that grant of probate could not be revoked if the executor failed to administer the property as per the grant. The learned Judge also noted that upon the Appellant making out a case for removal of an executor under the will, the Appellant could be appointed as an executor in place of Respondent no.1 after Respondent no.1 was directed to furnish inventory and accounts. On the amended case, the learned Judge observed that no original document was produced for comparing the signature of the deceased on the will. The learned Judge held that after acceptance of the will of the deceased, the Appellant could not make out a wholly inconsistent case challenging the genuineness of the will merely on the basis of photocopies. As for the signatures of the deceased on the certified copies of court proceedings, which signatures according to the learned Judge could be accepted for comparison, the learned Judge compared the same with the signature on the original will under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and found the signature on the will to be genuine. The learned Judge, in the premises, dismissed the Misc. Petition.

6. It may be noted that no evidence including evidence of any handwriting expert is produced by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge to dispute the genuineness of the signature of the deceased on the will probated by the court. Even as regards the signatures of the deceased available on record and which could be compared with the signature of the deceased on the will, there is no evidence adduced by the Appellant to impugn the genuineness of the signature of the de