N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 734 days in filing the O.S.A. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, health grounds have been stated to be the reason for the delay. This petition has been vehemently opposed by the respondents on the ground that there are absolutely no materials to show that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners were seriously ill and the 1st petitioner was attending to the health of his mother-in-law who was also stated to be seriously ill.

2. We have gone through the averments made in the affidavit and also heard the respective counsels. We thought that we will take up the main O.S.A itself for final hearing on merits along with the condone delay petition and we requested the learned counsel on either side to address their arguments on the merits of the case apart from the condone delay petition, so that we can effectively dispose of the main case itself which was filed for issuing Letters of Administration to the respondents under the Registered Will dated 31.10.2003.

3. The respondents filed O.P.No.452 of 2010 for grant of Letters of Administration on the ground that their father late Muthukaruppan Chettiar has left behind a Will dated 31.10.2003 in and by which he has bequeathed the suit property in favour of the respondents. The said late Muthukaruppan Chettiar died on 04.02.2008. Subsequent to his death, the respondents filed the said petition for grant of Letters of Administration.

4. In the petition, the appellants who are also the sons of late Muthukaruppan Chettiar were added as respondents. Notice was ordered to the respondents and on service of notice, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel. The respondents had filed a caveat, supporting affidavit and vakalat on 15.07.2010 and the same was returned on 19.07.2010. It is seen from the records that it was represented on 17.07.2012 and it was again returned on 20.11.2012. The learned counsel for the appellants took back the returned papers on 01.08.2013.

5. It is also seen from the records that the name of the learned counsel was printed when the matter was posted before the learned Master for taking evidence in the O.P. specifically mentioning that the vakalat has been returned. Since there was no appearance on the side of the appellants and since no caveat or supporting affidavit was found on record, the learned Master after taking evidence had sent the papers back to the Court and the learned Single Judge after satisfying himself that the Will has been sufficiently proved and is a true and genuine document, by an order dated 29.07.2013 was pleased to grant Letters of Administration in favour of the respondents.

6. After orders were passed in the O.P, the appellants filed A.No.5285 of 2011 praying this Court to revoke the order of Letters of Administration granted in the O.P in favour of the respondents.

7. The learned Single Judge took up for hearing, the application filed by the appellants in A.No.5285 of 2011 and after hearing the learned counsel for either parties and after taking into consideration the materials available on record, was pleased to dismiss the application by an order dated 08.08.2012. Aggrieved by this order, the present O.S.A has been filed.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in spite of filing the caveat and the supporting affidavit, the O.P instead of being converted into a T.O.S, was allowed as if no caveat was filed. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that there are two Wills, one executed by the father late Muthukaruppan Chettiar and another Will executed by the mother and both these Wills were executed and registered on the same day and the attesting witness in both the Wills were the same persons. His further contention is that insofar as the Will executed by the mother, the appellants have already filed a caveat and the O.P has been converted into a T.O.S and the same is pending. The lea