(1.) SANJIB Banerjee, J. : The application for condonation of delay has been filed as an afterthought and, ostensibly, by way of abundant caution. The petitioner had proceeded before that in the conviction that there was no delay on its part and, consequently, there was no need to proffer any explanation as to why the prayer for revocation of the grant of probate was not made earlier.

(2.) THE petitioner is a company, of which brothers Subramanyan -Sharad and Vasant appear to be the effective, if not the only, shareholders. No large corporate or business activity of the company is attempted to be demonstrated and it appears safe to conclude that its principal interest is in its alleged leasehold rights in respect of the first floor of premises No. 13/1, promotesh Barua Sarani, Calcutta -700019 that affords its shareholders to keep company of distinguished occupants in a plush upmarket part of town. The petitioner claims to be a lessee of the premises for 99 years, obtained under a deed of October 21, 1992 executed by Reba Mitra who as widow would have been the only intestate heir of testator Kamal Kumar Mitra.

(3.) THE petitioner claims that the testator, in fact, died intestate whereupon the entire estate devolved upon his widow who had authority to grant the lease in the petitioners favour. The petitioner relies on Reba Mitra having executed and registered a Will in 1992 by which she appointed Sharad Subramanyan as one of the executors and wherein she recorded having leased out, as owner, the said premises to the petitioner. The petitioner portrays a picture of having been unaware of any Will of Kamal Kumar Mitra having been discovered subsequent to the execution of the lease and of such Will having been probated in common form. The petitioner asserts that it was only upon letters of August 28, 2007 and September 5, 2007 being received by it from the administrator pendente lite to the estate of Kamal Mitra that the petitioner came to know of kamal Mitras Will. According to the petitioner, subsequent discovery by the petitioner revealed that Kamal Mitra was said to have executed a Will on march 19, 1991, about six months prior to his death in September of that year; of the probate being granted of such Will on May 4, 1993; and, of the fraudulent conduct of the propounder in not citing the petitioner. The petitioner says that as transferee of a property by the intestate heir, the petitioner had sufficient caveatable under section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to be cited. The petitioner insists that it is, in any event, entitled to maintain an application for revocation of the grant under section 263 of the Act. The petitioner argues that a valuable right acquired by it has been sought to be set at naught behind its back and it is possible that the entire exercise has been engineered to denude the petitioner of its rights under the lease without the authenticity of the Will being established in the petitioners presence.

(4.) AS to the petitioners knowledge and the accrual of its right to apply, the petitioner cites the first letter that it received from the administrator pendente lite and suggests that the petition for revocation of the grant has been made well within the time afforded to such an applicant under the residuary Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner says that it is only upon the litany of charges levelled against it in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the propounders of, or the beneficiaries under, the Will that the petitioner thought it fit to bring an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in the event the Court felt that the petitioner was required to explain the apparent delay between the grant of probate in the summer of 1993 and its application for revocation thereof in the autumn of 2007.

(5.) THE legatees suggest that the present endeavour of the petitioner is a scandalous abuse of process to give a false impression and resurrect a Us