JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions for early listing and for disposal of Probate Misc. Case No. 12 (T) of 1995 which is pending before the Court of Additional to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, which was remanded by order dated 05.07.2012 passed in RFA No. 2 (SH) of 2010 for reconsideration, by the then Gauhati High Court, which was the jurisdictional High Court over Meghalaya.

2. This application has been preferred by the wife of Late Ashok Baran Paul who is stated to have expired on 14.06.2019 and the Death Certificate has been annexed to the application. The reasons as stated in the application is that the matter could not be disposed due to the fact that the records were untraceable.

3. This Court after issuance of notice to the respondents by order dated 14.12.2019, requisitioned the records of the Probate Misc. Case No. 12 (T) of 1995 which were received on 29.06.2020. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 had entered appearance and though notice was effected upon the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, none entered appearance. As far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, though notice was issued on 2 (two) occasions, the said notice was returned unserved with a note “not known” as per the office note dated 17.12.2020. Thereafter, on verification it transpires that, the last known address of respondent No. 4 on which notice was addressed to was the last known correct address but for reasons unknown the notice remained unserved.

4. Faced this situation and on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent No. 1 and considering the long delay in the disposal of the probate matter, this matter is being disposed of today itself to avoid any further delay.

5. The order dated 05.07.2012 passed in RFA No. 2 (SH) of 2010 by which the matter was remanded for the sake of convenience is reproduced herein below:

“RFA No. 2 (SH) of 2010

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

05.7.2012

Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 27.9.1995 passed by the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Probate Misc. Case No. 12 (T) of 1995 granting probate of the Will and testament in respect of the father of the appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 on various grounds. One of the grounds taken is that the appellant never received any notice from the Court in connection with the aforesaid proceeding before the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Probate Misc. Case No. 12 (T) of 1995. In this connection, this Court has perused original records. As per the original records, it is found that the notice issued to the appellant had been received with the signature “Ashok Baran Paul”, which the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits is not the signature of the appellant but a forged one.

In view of the above position, it is felt that it would be appropriate for the court below to re-examine whether the appellant had indeed received the said notice as indicated in the record and to find out whether the signature bearing the name of “Ashok Baran Paul” on the summons notice is the signature of the present appellant. In the event, the learned Court below comes to a conclusion that the aforesaid signature bearing “Ashok Baran Paul” dated 25.6.1999 on the summons notice on record is not the signature of the appellant, it can not be said that notice had been served to the appellant. In the event of such finding, the order dated 27.9.1995 passed by the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Probate Misc. Case No. 12 (T) of 1995 cannot stand and the Court below would be required to re-hear the entire matter afresh by giving notice to all the parties.

However, if the Court below comes to the conclusi