A probate court, being a court of conscience, should give sufficient opportunity to parties who have locus to challenge a probate proceeding to assist the court in coming to a right conclusion regarding the genuineness of a will.

1. THE propriety of an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Barasat in O. S. No. 48 of 2008 on 27th July, 2009 vide Order No. 20, is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the defendants/petitioners. The instant revisional application arises out of a probate proceeding which became contentious as one of the petitioners namely Mrs. Manju Mitra objected to the grant of probate of the will dated 5th May, 2006 left by Harihar Mitra since deceased. The opposite party who is the propounder of the said will is represented by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel.

2. BY the impugned order at least three applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the learned Trial Judge. In one of such applications the defendant Manju Mitra prayed for setting aside of the ex-parte hearing of the said suit. In the other petition she had shown cause as to why no step could be taken on her behalf in the said suit before the learned Trial Judge on 5th May, 2009. In the other petition the petitioners prayed for issuance of direction upon the propounder to serve a photostat copy of the purported will dated 5th May, 2006 of Harihar Mitra with a further direction upon the sherestadar of the learned Trial Court for giving inspection of the purported will dated 5th May, 2006 of Harihar Mitra to the petitioners, so that an effective written statement can be filed by the petitioners herein within such time which will be fixed by the learned Trial Judge after furnishing a copy of the will and after offering inspection of the said will to the petitioners. All these three applications were disposed of by the learned Trial Judge by the common order which is impugned herein. The first two applications of the petitioners were rejected by the learned Trial Judge and as a result, the suit was not taken off from the ex-parte board of hearing and the written statement filed by the defendants/petitioners beyond time was not accepted by the learned Trial Judge.

The learned Trial Judge also held that in this set of facts the petitioners prayer for inspection of the will need not be considered and the net effect thereof amounts to virtual rejection of the petitioners prayer for inspection of the said will.

3. REASON in support of such conclusion was given by the learned Trial Judge in great details in the impugned order.

4. AT a first glance of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in those applications, this Court was of the view that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order by rejecting the petitioners those two applications and also by not considering the petitioners other application on merit as indicated above. In fact, this Court was very much impressed by the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners who contended that a probate Court being a Court of conscience should not have passed the impugned order by not allowing the petitioners to inspect the original will, as it is impossible for the petitioners to file a comprehensive written statement in the suit unless inspection of the original will is allowed to be taken by the petitioners. Mr. Mukherjee contended that even the copy of the will has not been supplied to the petitioners till date and as a result, complete and effective written statement could not be filed by the petitioners in the said suit.

Mr. Mukherjee further contended that, in fact, the petitioners had no other alternative but to file an incomplete written statement in the suit for avoiding ex parte hearing of the said suit. Mr. Mukherjee further pointed out that even though the petitioners sufficiently explained the reasons for his clients default on 5th May, 2007 but, still then, neither the said written statement filed by the petitioners, was accepted by the learned Trial Judge nor the petitioners were allowed to participate in the hearing though they w