Compliance with Rule 401 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules is essential for filing a caveat, and any deviation from the prescribed format may lead to rejection of the condonation of delay.

1. By this Chamber Summons, applicants seek condonation of delay of 140 days in filing caveat and affidavit in support of caveat. This Chamber Summons is opposed by the original petitioner by filing a detailed affidavit in reply. There is no rejoinder filed by the applicants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Chamber Summons are as under:-

2. On 22nd April, 2013 citations were received by the caveators at Canada. On 15th/25th June, 2013, Mrs.Dahiben Vasantkumar Patel who is one of the applicant and was served with citation executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr.Suchindra Bhawarlal Soni. Based on such power of attorney, on 4th July, 2013, the said constituted attorney filed caveat in this court on behalf of all the applicants.

3. On 4th July, 2013, applicants filed Chamber Summons (59 of 2013) in Petition No. 466 of 2010 inter alia praying for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing caveat. While opposing the said Chamber Summons No. 59 of 2013, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly raised an objection regarding the power of attorney dated 15th/25th June, 2013 on the ground that the same was given only by Mrs.Dahiben Vasantkumar Patel one of the applicant and not by other applicants. An objection was also raised that the said power of attorney was only to deal with two of the flats mentioned therein and not for filing any proceedings including caveat in respect of the estate of the deceased.

4. On 16th September, 2013, applicants herein sought liberty to withdraw the said Chamber Summons No. 59 of 2013 with liberty to file fresh Chamber Summons in view of the objections raised by the original petitioner. By an order dated 16th September, 2013, this court granted liberty to the applicants to withdraw the said Chamber Summons (59 of 2013) with liberty to file a fresh Chamber Summons. Chamber Summons was dismissed with liberty as prayed.

5. On 30th September, 2013, the applicants have executed another power of attorney in favour of the same constituted attorney Mr.Suchindra Bhawarlal Soni. The contents of the power of attorney executed on 30th September, 2013 and 15th/25th June, 2013 are identical. Mr.Vora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to both the General Power of Attorneys dated 15th/25th June, 2013 and 30th September, 2013. It is submitted that the specimen signature of the alleged constituted attorney is not identified by any advocate or by notary public. It is submitted that in any event, the power of attorney does not authorise the constituted attorney to file any caveat and/or affidavit in support of caveat or Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicants in the testamentary proceedings but at most empower the constituted attorney to deal with the two flats which are already sold.

6. Mr.Vora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the caveat and affidavit in support are admittedly filed on the basis of the first power of attorney dated 15th/25th June, 2013 which was admittedly defective as the same was not given by all the applicants but only by Mrs.Dahiben V.Patel. When this objections were brought to the notice of the court, the applicants withdrew the earlier chamber summons with liberty to file fresh chamber summons. It is submitted that even the second power of attorney is identical to the first power of attorney. Learned counsel submitted that since the caveat and affidavit in support filed by the applicants is based on the defective power of attorney, such defective caveat and affidavit in support are not the valid caveat and affidavit and thus can be considered to be on record. It is submitted that since the caveat and affidavit in support are defective, the question of condoning delay in filing caveat and affidavit does not arise.

7. Mr.Vora, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Shrichand Vishandas Raheja vs. Purshotam Vishandas Raheja reported in 2011(4) Bo