ORDER Khan, (J)
1. Petitioner wanted to amend his objections in probate case No.442/94 for incorporating plea regarding execution of additional wills dated 7.1.87 and 6.6.78. His prayer was rejected by Probate court by order dated 22.2.99 and he has now filed this revision petition to challenge the order.
2. Petitioner's father Janak Nath Uppal allegedly executed four wills dated 6.8.1977, 10.1.1988 and dated 7.1.1987 and 6.6.1975- the last two are the subject matter of present controversy. Petitioner applied for grant of probate to will dated 10.1.1988 in Probate Case No.447/94 and his elder brother Pran Nath Uppal did it for will dated 6.8.77 in Probate case No.442/94.
3. Testator died on 13.11.1988. Petitioner filed his probate case after three years or so while his elder brother did it immediately after his father's death, but died during its pendency on 21.5.89. His LRs were substituted in Probate case No.442/94 and are respondents 1-4 herein.
4. While the two probate cases were consolidated by Trial court, petitioner moved an application dated 8.10.98 seeking amendment of his objections filed in probate case No.442/94 to incorporate pleas regarding execution of two more wills by the testator dated 7.1.87 and 10.11.95 after 10 years. He did so on the ground that he visited her sister Smt.Nirmal Chopra at Kanpur who had found these in the testator's bag.
5. Probate court dismissed the amendment application on the ground that one of these wills was unsigned and that petitioner had himself sought probate of a subsequent will and that Nirmal Chopra, being a party to probate case No.442/94 could have herself brought the wills on record and find that there was inordinate delay of 10 years invoked in moving the application.
6. Petitioner has filed this revision petition to assail the order. I have examined the impugned order and I find no infirmity or illegality in it. The order proceeds on a sound reasoning and it becomes difficult to take a contrary view in the matter. Moreover, no prejudice was likely to be caused to petitioner because the disputed two wills could not be said to be crucial for determination of the genuineness or otherwise of the wills for which Probate was sought. Therefore, agreeing with the reasoning adopted by Trial court, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.