1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.34 and respondent No.32 in person.

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties to this petition.

4. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 04.01.2014, passed below Exh.276, by 8th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, in Misc. Application No.21 of 2008.

5. Application at Exh.276 was filed by the petitioners herein, under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for appointment of Administrator pedente lite, in the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 21 of 2008, which was filed for revocation of the will dated 26th April, 2006, executed by the father of the petitioners namely Dr. N.G. Dastane. Respondent No.32 is the daughter and respondent No.33 is the wife of late Dr. Dastane and both these respondents are supporting the case of the petitioners.

6. At the outset itself, it has to be stated that this writ petition has a chequered history of litigation. Several proceedings instituted by the petitioners and respondent No.32 are pending in the Court. Some of them are disposed of. It appears that to some extent, this Writ Petition has also become in fructuous in view of subsequent orders passed by this Court, in other proceedings after filing of this writ petition. However, as learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.32 are still keen to argue this writ petition on merits, I have heard them at length. I have also perused the written Notes of Arguments filed by Respondent Nos. 32 and 33 and the earlier orders passed in these proceedings and on the basis of the same, at the stage of admission itself, this writ petition is being decided finally.

7. The facts of the writ petition are to the effect that Dr. N. G. Dastane, died on 26.04.2006, leaving behind him the petitioners and respondent No.32 as his daughters, and respondent No.33 his wife. He has also left behind his last Will dated 25.4.2006, which was executed just a day before his death. By the said will, he has appointed respondent No.1 as the Executor of the will. Respondent No.1 had filed Misc. Application No.359 of 2006, before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, for obtaining the probate of the said will and on the basis of consent given by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 32 and 33, the members of 'Dastane Family', the Civil Court, allowed the said Application on 18.6.2007, directing respondent No.1 to furnish Indemnity Bond and Surety Bond of like amounts. Accordingly respondent No.1 asked the petitioners and respondent Nos.32 and 33 to furnish surety bonds which they refused to give, as according to them, they being from the family of late Dastane and as his legal heirs, they were not required to give the same. The surety bonds were, however, furnished by respondent No.2 and 6 and after obtaining necessary order from the Court, the probate was granted in the name of respondent No.1 on 14.12.2007.

8. At this stage, it may be stated that on 12.6.2006 itself, respondent No.1 had, with the consent of the petitioners and respondent Nos.32 and 33 viz., the members of Dastane Family, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.34 METCO, for advice and assistance in the execution of Dr. Dastane's Will. Thereafter on 18.6.2007, in pursuance of the probate granted on 18.6.2007, the immovable assets were distributed in terms of the Will. On 13th July, 2007 the jewellery from Dr. Dastane's Locker was given to respondent No.33 Sucheta as widow. Except for cash or monetary bequests, all other bequests under the Will, namely the jewellery and immovable properties, were distributed and received in accordance with the terms of that will.

9. As per the case of petitioners, respondent No.32 by her various emails requested respondent No.1 to inform her and all the legal heirs of his further actions regarding distr