Heard Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2.The Testatrix, who served as an high ranking Civil servant in the Central Government and the wife of a freedom fighter Late N.Krishnaswamy, (who was incarcerated along with the freedom fighter like Sri.Jamanlal Bajaj), left a Will on her own accord and bequeathed substantial portion of the properties to the Cancer Institute at Chennai. The executors of the Will filed a Original Petition before this court for the grant of probate as soon as the death of the testatrix on 19. 2005. The O.P. which was presented before this Court on 12. 2005 was admitted on 23. 2006. On notice, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 have filed consent affidavits, expressing no objection to the grant.

3. Insofar as the applicants are concerned, they were served on 11.04.2006. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 10.07.2007, this Court directed to print the name of the two applicants, who had filed the caveat before this Court and the matter was directed to be posted on 12.07.2007. It was stated that their counsel M/s.R.Suresh Kumar and R.Sivakumar have filed a caveat on behalf of the applicants. When the matter came up again on 16.07.2007, this Court directed the name of R.Sivakumar, counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 to be printed and the matter was directed to be posted on the week next. Accordingly, the matter came up on 23.07.2007. This Court recorded that the counsel for respondents 2 and 2 who have filed caveat was absent and it was further directed to be adjourned to next week. This matter was finally listed on 31.07.2007.

4. This Court by an order dated 31.07.2007 granted the Probate, which was issued on 11.09.2007. In paragraph 5 of the said order, it was recorded as follows:

"5. Although a caveat has been entered on behalf of the second and third respondents, in the absence of any satisfaction of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of Order 25 of the Original Side Rules by filing necessary affidavit, the caveat stands discharged. In any event, as per Rule 56 of order 25 of the Original Side Rules, the caveat shall remain in force only for a period of six months. There is also no appearance by the counsel on behalf of the second and third respondents."

5. It is against the grant of Probate, these two applications were filed one for the revocation of the probate and the other for the stay of all further proceedings. The first applicant is 87 years old and the second applicant is 80 years old as on date.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it was stated that the counsel for the applicants negotiated for a settlement and the talks were in progress. The first settlement talk was held during the last week of May 2006. During the entire period, the applicants counsel were not kept aware of the proceedings before this Court. It was only on 21.09.2007 they came to know about the grant of probate. They have stated that since they were under a bonafide belief that negotiations were on, there would not be any proceedings. Even when this Court directed the name of the caveators counsel to be printed in the cause list, instead of printing the names of both counsels i.e. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar and Mr.R.Sivakumar, the cause list contained only the name of Mr.R.Sivakumar. Hence the matter was not noticed by their counsel. It was also stated that they have a caveat interest in the proceedings in as much as that during the life time of Late T.S.Savithri, she had not created any Will and the signature found in the Will was not that of hers.

7. On notice from this Court, the respondent/original petitioners have filed a counter affidavit resisting the ordering of the application. In the counter affidavit dated 010. 2007, the entire events have been set out chronologically. It was denied that there were any malafide motive in keeping the counsels for the applicant not informed. Despite the name