AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard learned Counsels of either parties, it transpires that a Probate Case No. 11/2001 was decreed by the learned District Judge, Haridwar vide judgment and order dated 28.7.2003. Such judgment was passed in the absence of the opposite parties on the ground that they have been sufficiently served.
The contention of the opposite parties (three real brothers) was that, in fact, they were never got served, while a fake written statement was filed by some unknown persons. So, the learned Court below was constrained to accept the service on the respondents. On coming to know the truth, three real brothers applied for revocation of the probate, which was decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2017 and the learned Court below accepted such revocation petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 28.7.2003, but mistakenly the whole file was consigned.
I feel that instead of consigning the file, the Court below ought to have decided the probate case on merits after rendering opportunity to Jogendra Singh, Rakshpal Singh and Smt. Urvasha Rani (wife of third
brother) to file their written statement against the Probate Case No. 11/2001.
With the above observation, this appeal is finally disposed of.
Since the probate case is too old, hence the Court below will make every endeavour to adjudicate the same at the earliest possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment.