O-9 APO/5/2025 With PLA/209/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF:

NARANJAN DAS BHATIA (DEC.)

AND SHEETAL KHANDPUR -VS-

BINA PAVAN CHOPRA BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY Date : 9th June, 2025.

Appearance:

Mr. Rohit Madan, Adv. Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv. Mr. Abhinaba Ray, Adv.

…for the appellant Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Sonia Das, Adv.

…for the defendantrespondent Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

The Court: A judgment and order dated September 26, 2023 passed by a Learned Judge of this Court dismissing GA/7/2019 (Old No.GA/2986/2019) is under challenge in this appeal.

The relevant facts, briefly narrated, are that one N. D. Bhatia passed away leaving behind what is said to be his last Will and testament. On an application for grant of probate, a Learned Judge of this Court granted probate in respect of the said Will. This was in 2013/2014.

The present appellant filed GA/221/2016 for stay of operation of the probate and for injunction restraining the grantee from taking any steps on the basis of the probate. Subsequently, an application for amendment was taken out by the present appellant for incorporating certain prayers in GA/221/2016 including a prayer for revocation of the probate. That amendment application being GA/1991/2016 was allowed by a Learned Judge of this Court by an order dated July 13, 2017. The department was directed to carry out the amendment within two weeks from the date of the order.

It appears that the order of amendment was not, in fact, carried out.

The appellant herein approached the Learned Single Judge with an application being GA/3134/2018 for extension of time to carry out the amendment. By an order dated November 22, 2018, such application was allowed on condition of payment of cost of 200 GMs to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal. The department was directed to carry out the amendment upon communication of the said order as well as on being satisfied that the cost had been paid in terms of the order.

In spite of the aforesaid, it appears that the amendment to GA/221/2016 has still not been carried out. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant says that the cost was duly paid by the appellant as would appear from a receipt dated November 28, 2018, issued by the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, a copy whereof has been included in the paper-book filed in this appeal.

It appears that the appellant thereafter took out another application being GA/1293/2019 again praying for revocation of the concerned probate. That application was dismissed for default by a Learned Judge by an order dated November 28, 2019. The appellant herein filed an application being GA/7/2019 (Old NO.GA/2986/2019) for recall of the order dated November

28, 2019, and for restoration of GA/1293/2019.

By the order impugned the Learned Judge dismissed GA/7/2019. The operative portion of the Learned Judge’s order reads as follows:

“This Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner being GA/1293/2019 is not maintainable as this Court has already passed an order on 22nd November, 2018 in GA/3134/2018 allowing the petitioner to carry out the amendment but the petitioner has failed to carry out the same.”

Being aggrieved the appellant is before us.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

The appellant’s application assailing the probate being GA/221/2016 is pending disposal. The appellant’s application for amendment of that application has been allowed by a Learned Judge thereby permitting incorporation of a prayer for revocation of the probate in GA/221/2016. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that a second application for revocation of probate is not maintainable as the same would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Hence, we do not see any material infirmity in the order impugned before us. No useful purpose would be served by recalling the order dated November 28, 2019 whereby