For The vs Laxmi on 14 January, 2026

                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
           TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
                         ORIGINAL SIDE


PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

                             PLA/8/2018
               IA No. GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/121/2018),
                  GA/2/2019, GA/3/2022, GA/4/2022
                        GA/5/2023, GA/6/2023
               IN THE GOODS OF: DIPAK SEN (DECEASED)

For the Petitioner        : Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, Advocate
                            Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty, Advocate
                            Ms. Akansha Chowdhury, Advocate
                            Mr. Samriddha Saha, Advocate

For the Respondent        : Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate
                            Mr. P. Mukherjee, Advocate
                            Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Advocate
Reserved on               : 11th September, 2025

Delivered on              : 14th January, 2026


                                  ORDER

Bivas Pattanayak, J. :-

1. At the time of delivery of judgment, it is informed by learned

advocates for both the sides that the petitioner, mother of the deceased,

has already expired. Learned advocate, who represented the mother of the

deceased, submitted that steps have already been taken in such regard.

Accordingly, the judgment is delivered in open Court in presence of learned

advocates for both the sides.

2. Both the applications have arisen in connection with a petition for

grant of letters of administration and for issuance of special and general

citation being PLA No. 8 of 2018 filed by the mother of the deceased

Deepak Sen who passed away on 25th November, 2017 leaving behind the

mother, widow and minor daughter as his legal heirs.

3. G.A. No. 5 of 2023 is filed by the widow of the deceased Deepak Sen.

The applicant contends that in the second week of January 2018 she

received a copy of application being GA 121 of 2018 filed by her mother-in-

law Mrs. Rama Sen in connection with PLA 8 of 2018. However, no copy of

PLA 8 of 2018 was served upon her. From the application being GA No.

121 of 2018 she came to learn that Mrs. Rama Sen had filed an application

for obtaining letters of administration in respect of the estate of her

deceased husband without any Will annexed. Fact remains that no citation

was ever served upon the applicant or her daughter namely Dishari Sen. It

is after receipt of copy of application being G.A. No.121 of 2018, the

applicant lodged the caveat. The advocates of the applicant advised the

applicant that unless the citation is received, there is no question of filing

any caveat or any affidavit in support of caveat. The caveat lodged by the

applicant sometime in January 2018 by the erstwhile learned advocate

slipped out of her mind and she forgot to intimate the present advocate. Be

that as it may, the citation was not issued either to the applicant or to her

daughter and none of them had received copy of the petition being PLA No.

8 of 2018.

4. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant in G.A. 5 of 2023 being the widow

of the deceased made following prayers:

"a) An order be passed directing Mrs. Roma Sen to serve a copy of P.L.A. No. 8 of 2018 on the applicants;

b) Leave be granted to the applicants to file caveats within a week from receipt of P.L.A. No. 8 of 2018;

c) Leave be granted to the applicants to file affidavit in support of caveat in P.L.A. No. 8 of 2018 within a period of two weeks thereafter;

d) Ad interim orders in terms of the prayers above;

e) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed, direction or directions be given as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

5. G.A. 6 of 2023 is filed by the mother of the deceased Deepak Sen, who

is also the petitioner in PLA 8 of 2018. The applicant contends that in the

proceeding for grant of letters of administration, the applicant filed a

petition on 11th January, 2018, seeking for an order of injunction

restraining the respondent, being the widow of the deceased, from dealing

with the assets of the deceased. Upon receipt of the aforesaid application,

the respondent on 18th January, 2018, filed a caveat in terms of Rule 24 of

Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta in

the instant proceeding. As per the extant of the rule of the Original Side,

the time to file affidavit in support of caveat expired on 26th January, 2018.

Admittedly, no caveat was filed within the said prescribed time nor any

application for extension of such time within the prescribed period was

filed by the respondent. On 25th January, 2018, upon hearing both sides,

this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order restraining the parties

from dealing with the assets of the deceased, however, allowing the

respondent to operate the bank accounts and withdraw such sums as may

be necessary for the welfare and sustenance of the minor child. The said

order was subsequently modified on 7th February, 2018, permitting the

respondent to withdraw such sum from the bank account of the deceased

as may be necessary for the sustenance of the respondent herself as well

as the welfare and sustenance of the minor child. The respondent filed an

affidavit-in-opposition on 16th February, 2018, whereby the respondent,

inter alia, made categorical comments against each of the assets of the

deceased stipulated in the affidavit of assets filed in the instant PLA No. 8

of 2018. On 11th March, 2022, the matter was heard in presence of

Advocates of the respective parties and the Hon'ble Court directed both the

parties to disclose the details and particulars of the assets lying in the

custody of each party. A Supplementary Affidavit dated 11th April, 2022

was filed by respondent disclosing withdrawal made by her. On 12th April,

2022, the respondent filed an application being G.A. 3 of 2022 whereby the

respondent prayed for appointment of receiver for sale and distribution of

immovable assets of the deceased amongst the legal heirs of the deceased.

On 16th August, 2022, the petitioner filed an application being G.A. 4 of

2022 for appointment of a receiver for the distribution of assets of the

deceased as a whole amongst all three legal heirs of the deceased in equal

proportion and the respondent filed her affidavit-in-opposition to the said

application on 17th January, 2023. The respondent upon filing of the

caveat regularly appeared in the aforesaid matter and filed various

pleadings excepting the affidavit in support of caveat despite having full

knowledge about the matter and despite being fully aware that the time to

file her affidavit in support of caveat stood expired on 26th January, 2018.

However, the respondent chose not to file her affidavit in support of caveat

pursuant to Rule 25 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the

High Court within the prescribed time period which expired on 26th

January, 2018.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the applicant in GA 6 of 2023, being the

mother of the deceased, made following prayers:

"(a) An order be passed that the caveat dated 18th January 2018 filed by the Respondent herein stood discharged on 26th January 2018 in terms of Rule 27 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta;

(b) An order be passed, in the alternative, that the caveat dated 18th January 2018 filed by the Respondent is discharged;

(c) Ad interim orders in terms of the prayers above prayers be passed by this Hon'ble Court;

(d) Costs of and incidentals to this Application be paid out of the estate of the deceased;

(e) Such further order/s be passed and/or direction/s be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

7. Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner and

applicant in GA 6 of 2023 submitted that the mother of the deceased

namely Rama Sen filed a petition for grant of letters of Administration

being PLA 8 of 2018. In the said proceeding the petitioner filed an

application for injunction, being GA 121 of 2018, in order to restrain the

respondent, being the widow of the deceased, from dealing with the assets

of the deceased. The copy of the said application was served upon the

respondent along with affidavit of assets. Consequently, the respondent on

18th January, 2018 filed a caveat in terms of Rule 24 of Chapter XXXV of

the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta in the instant

proceeding. As per the extant of the Original Side Rules, the time to file

affidavit in support of caveat expired on 26th January, 2018. Admittedly,

no such affidavit in support of caveat has been filed within the said

prescribed time nor any application for extension of such time within the

prescribed period was filed by the respondent. The injunction application

as well as the other applications filed at the instance of the petitioner has

been duly contested by the respondent by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The

respondent has also made categorical comments in her affidavit-in-

opposition against each of the assets of the deceased stipulated in the

affidavit of assets filed in the instant proceeding. Though the copy of the

PLA 8 of 2018 is yet to be served but that would hardly have any

consequence so far as the respondent is concerned since the

averments/contentions made in the application being GA 121 of 2018 is

all the same as of PLA 8 of 2018. Thus, the respondent cannot contend

that she has no knowledge about the contention of the original proceeding

for grant of letters of administration. The respondent by filing caveat

regularly appeared in the instant proceeding for grant of letters of

administration and filed various pleadings excepting the affidavit in

support of caveat, despite having full knowledge about the matter and

being fully aware that the time to file affidavit in support of caveat stood

expired on 26th January, 2018. However, despite having knowledge of the

instant proceeding, the respondent chose not to file her affidavit in support

of caveat pursuant to Rule 25 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules

of the High Court at Calcutta which provides that the said affidavit shall be

filed within eighth day of caveat being lodged. Rule 25 of Chapter XXXV of

the Original Side Rules does not provide any precondition of service of copy

of the PLA. A caveat is simply a warning given by a person having or

asserting any interest in the estate of the deceased against the court

issuing grant without notice to the caveator. The whole object of the caveat

is to prevent the issue of any grant without notice to the caveator. Under

the rules of the Original Side of the High Court, the caveator has to file

affidavit which must not only disclose his right and interest in the estate of

the deceased testator but also the grounds of objection. The penalty for not

making the requisite affidavit within the time specified by the rules is

discharge of the caveat itself. To buttress his contention he relied on the

decision of this Hon'ble Court passed In the goods of Nanda Lal

Sett....deceased1.

Relying on the decision of this Court In the Goods of: Prabir Chandra

Sen, Deceased2, he submitted that citation in the proceeding for grant of

probate or letters of administration are issued for the purpose that a

person who is not a party to the proceedings is made aware about the

proceedings so that anyone who intends to watch the Will being proved or

administration of an estate being granted can do so. In the instant

proceeding, though citation has not yet been issued but such aspect

becomes nugatory since caveat has already been filed by the respondent.

Moreover, the prayer for filing fresh caveat made by the respondent in their

application being GA 5 of 2023 is uncalled for since the same has already

been filed by her.

In view of the given circumstances and pursuant to Rule 27 of Chapter

XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, the

petitioner/applicant in her application being GA 6 of 2023 has prayed for

an order discharging the caveat filed by the respondent on 18th January,

2018.

8. Per contra, Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the

respondent, being widow of the deceased, and applicant of GA 5 of 2023,

submitted that till date neither the copy of the application for grant of

letters of administration has been served upon the respondent or her

1 1954 SCC OnLine Cal 133 2 PLA 115 of 2023 (Decision of Calcutta High Court)

minor daughter nor any citation has been issued. From the records, it will

reveal that only the widow of the deceased namely Sharbari Sen has lodged

the caveat. Rule 9 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the High

Court at Calcutta provides that on an application for letters of

administration, unless otherwise ordered, a citation shall be issued to all

persons having a right to take the grant prior or equal to that of the

applicant, unless such persons have signified their consent to the

application. In the present case, no such order has been passed by the

Court that there is no requirement of issuance of citation. Rule 25 of

Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules provides that the affidavit in

support of caveat shall state the grounds of objection to the application.

Such provision presupposes that the copy of the application for grant of

probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, has to be served.

Without service of the copy of the application for grant, the party who

intends to raise grounds for objection to the application would not be able

to put in his objection to the grant. In the absence of service of the copy of

the application for grant, provisions of Rule 25 as above would be

superfluous. Relying on the decision of this court passed In the Goods of :

Hemendra Prasad Barooah (Dec.)3 he submitted that the application for

grant has to be served upon the respondent enabling her to file the

affidavit in support of caveat. Further Rule 28 of Chapter XXXV of the

Original Side Rules provides that upon filing of the affidavit in support of

caveat, the application is to be renumbered as a suit and the petitioner will

be treated as the plaintiff and the caveator shall be the defendant and the

3 GA 402 of 2014; GA 622 of 2014; PLA 316 of 2013 (Decision of Calcutta High Court)

application for grant would deem to be a plaint and that the affidavit in

support of caveat will be treated as a written statement in the suit. The

procedure in such suit shall, as nearly as may be, be according to the

provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the process of causing

service of the copy of the application for grant has to be made before the

respondent can be called upon to file his grounds of objection by way of an

affidavit in support of caveat. In light of his aforesaid submissions, he

prayed that the prayers made by the applicant in GA 5 of 2023 be allowed

enabling the applicant/respondent to raise the ground of objection to the

grant of letters of administration.

9. In reply to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the

respondent, widow of the deceased, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the

petitioner, mother of the deceased, submitted that Rule 28 of Chapter

XXXV of the Original Side Rules does not make the application for grant of

probate or letters of administration a suit in the real sense, as a suit filed

with the presentation of a plaint. Merely because an application for grant

of probate or letters of administration at a subsequent stage is converted

into a suit under the law does not become a suit. Once application for

grant is filed it does not lose its original character and remains the same

and only the method of trial is changed. To buttress his contention, he

relied on the decision of this court passed in R.S Lodha versus Laxmi

Devi Newar4.

10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties

following issues fall for consideration in the present applications.

4 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 622

Firstly, whether the caveat filed by the respondent, being widow of the

deceased, on 18th January, 2018 is to be discharged in terms of Rule 27 of

Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, at Calcutta?

Secondly, whether the respondent, widow of the deceased, be allowed to

file her affidavit in support of caveat in the facts and circumstances of the

present case?

11. Both the aforesaid issues being interlinked are taken up together for

the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

12. Admittedly, in the instant proceeding neither the copy of the

application for grant of letters of administration has been served upon the

respondent nor any citation has been issued as yet. Rule 9 of Chapter

XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, at Calcutta provides

that on an application for letters of administration, unless otherwise

ordered, a citation shall be issued to all persons having a right to take the

grant prior or equal to that of the applicant, unless such persons have

signified their consent to the application. It is pertinent to note that there

is no such order passed by the court holding that there is no requirement

to issue citation. Moreover, none of the parties who have a right to grant

prior or equal to that of the applicant has signified their consent. Thus, the

mandate of Rule 9 as aforesaid is yet to be complied with. The direction in

the citation is provided under Rule 12 of Chapter XXXV of the Original

Side Rules of the High Court, at Calcutta which is reproduced hereunder:

"12. Direction in citation to show cause on a certain date- All citations shall, unless otherwise order, direct the persons cited to show cause on the fourth day from the date of service were the parties to the cited reside within the town of Calcutta or on such day certain as the charge shall direct where they reside outside Calcutta; and, where they cannot be served in the manner provided for service of process, may be

served by the insertion as an advertisement in such local newspapers as may be directed, of a notice in Form 5."

Therefore, the aforesaid provision clearly manifests that a citation is issued

to persons cited to show cause. Citation refers to the official notice served

by the court to all parties who have an interest in the estate of the

deceased. It ensures that all potential claimants are aware of the

proceedings and have the opportunity to participate or contest it.

13. Section 283 of Indian Succession Act deals with the powers of District

Judge. Section 283 reads as follows:

"283. Powers of District Judge.-(1) In all cases the District Judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks proper,--

(a)examine the petitioner in person, upon oath;

(b)require further evidence of the due execution of the will or the right of the petitioner to the letters of administration, as the case may be;

(c)issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration.

(2) The citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the court-

house, and also in the office of the Collector of the district and otherwise published or made known in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct.

(3) Where any portion of the assets has been stated by the petitioner to be situate within the jurisdiction of a District Judge in another State, the District Judge issuing the same shall cause a copy of the citation to be sent to such other District Judge, who shall publish the same in the same manner as if it were a citation issued by himself, and shall certify such publication to the District Judge who issued the citation."

14. The aforesaid provision clearly envisages that in all cases the District

Judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks proper, issue citations calling

upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased

to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of

administration.

15. In Manju Puri versus Rajiv Singh Hanspal5, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed as follows:

5 (2020) 19 SCC 127

"32. A plain reading of Section 283 makes it clear that by the use of word "may" a discretion has been conferred on the District Judge to issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased. Although, it is true that there is discretion vested to issue citation or not but such discretion has to be exercised with proper care. The Calcutta High Court in Kamona Soondury Dassee v. Hurro Lall Shaha [Kamona Soondury Dassee v. Hurro Lall Shaha, ILR (1882) 8 Cal 570] , had occasion to consider pari materia provision of Section 250 of the Succession Act, 1865 where discretion was vested in the District Judge to issue citation or not. The Calcutta High Court had observed in the said case that when will is propounded which alters the devolution of property, a special citation should be directed. Further, the discretion vested with the District Judge has to be exercised with proper care. The following observation was made by the Calcutta High Court : (ILR p. 576) "... Section 250 of the Succession Act vests the District Judge with full discretion, which should be exercised with proper care : and when a will is propounded which alters the devolution of property, a special citation should be directed to be served upon the person or persons who is or are immediately affected by the will.

33. The Calcutta High Court in another judgment in Syama Charan Baisya v. Prafulla Sundari Gupta [Syama Charan Baisya v. Prafulla Sundari Gupta, 1915 SCC OnLine Cal 79 : AIR 1916 Cal 623] , in a case where provisions of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 came for consideration, held that when a will is propounded which alters the devolution of property, the District Judge, in the exercise of the discretion, should direct the special citation. The following was held in the judgment :

(SCC OnLine Cal) "... as observed in Nistarini v. Brahmomoyi [Nistarini v. Brahmomoyi, ILR (1891) 18 Cal 45] , when a will is propounded which alters the devolution of property, the District Judge should, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by Section 69 of the Probate Act as to the mode of issuing citations, direct special citations to persons whose rights are immediately affected by the will."

34. In the present case, although there cannot be any dispute to the legal proposition that discretion is vested under Section 283 to issue citation or not but such discretion has to be judicially exercised with proper care adverting to the facts of each case."

16. The aforesaid Supreme Court's ruling in Manju Puri (supra)

underscores the paramount importance of procedural integrity in probate

proceedings. By mandating the issuance of citations to all rightful parties,

the Court ensures transparency and fairness, thereby safeguarding the

rights of all legal heirs. The requirement for adherence strictly to

procedural norms fortifies the probate process against potential fraud. The

procedural lapses, especially those that infringe upon the rights of legal

heirs, cannot be overlooked, thereby enhancing the robustness and

reliability of probate law in India.

17. In light of the above discussion, it becomes imperative to issue

citation in the proceeding of the present nature. Needless to mention that

the citation is yet to be issued.

18. In order to examine the issue regarding the question of discharge of

caveat filed by the respondent, it would be profitable to reproduce Rule 25,

26 and Rule 27 of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of the High

Court, at Calcutta as hereunder.

"25. Affidavit in support of caveat- Where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for a grant of probate or letters of Administration with or without the will annexed, the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be filed within eight days of the caveat being lodged, notwithstanding the long vacation. Such affidavit shall state the right and interest of caveator that the grounds of the objections to the application."

"26. Notice to caveator to file affidavit- Where application for grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the will annexed is presented after a caveat has been filed, the registrar shall forthwith issue notice to the caveator, calling upon him to file his affidavit or affidavits in support of his caveat within eight days from the service of such notice."

" 27. Consequence of not filing affidavit-Where the caveator fails to file any affidavit in support of his caveat in compliance with Rule 25 or compliance with the notice issued under Rule 26, the caveat may be discharged by order to be obtained on summons."

19. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is found that two

situations have been dealt with in the Rule 25 and 26. Rule 25 deals with

a situation where a caveat is entered after an application has been made

for a grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the Will

annexed and in such a case the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be

filed within eight days of the caveat being lodged. Rule 26 deals with a

situation where a caveat has been filed before an application for grant of

probate or letters of administration with or without the Will annexed is

presented and in such a case the Registrar has to forthwith issue notice to

the caveator, calling upon him to file his affidavit or affidavits in support of

his caveat within eight days from the service of such notice. Failure of

compliance with the aforesaid rules leads to discharge of the caveat as per

Rule 27. A conjoint reading of Rule 25 and Rule 26 shows that Rule 25

presupposes service of notice upon issuance of citation and as such does

not provide for issuance of any further notice by the Registrar upon the

caveator. Therefore, until and unless the service of process by issuance of

citation is done, the caveator cannot be called upon to comply Rule 25 and

file his objection without being made aware of the contents raised in the

application. In the present case at hand though the caveat has been filed

by the respondent after presentation of the application for grant of letters

of administration but the same has not been done against service of

process upon issuance of citation. Rule 25 further provides that the

affidavit shall state the right and interest of the caveator and the grounds

of objection to the application. Needless to mention that the application for

grant of letters of Administration has not been served upon the

respondent. It is of common parlance that a party cannot be called upon to

put in objection to any application filed by his adversary until and unless

the copy of the said application is served upon the party.

20. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, mother of the

deceased, has strenuously argued that the copy of the application being

GA 121 of 2018 has been served upon the respondent, widow of the

deceased, which contains affidavits of assets and the contention of the said

application is same as the application for grant of letters of administration

and, therefore, it would not be correct that the respondent is not aware of

the contention of the application for letters of administration. In such

regard this court is of the view that there cannot be any presumption of

service of an application or presumption of knowledge of the application on

the ground that the application which has been served and the application

which has not been served has the similar contention. Under the law,

separate applications filed at the instance of the parties requires to be

served separately. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent who

has not been served with the application for letters of administration is

aware of the contention of the said application through the application

being GA 121 of 2018. Hence such argument advanced on behalf of the

petitioner, mother of the deceased, does not stand to reason.

21. In the decision of Nanda Lal Sett (Deceased) (supra) the caveat was

sought to be discharged on the ground that the affidavit in support of

caveat did not disclose legal grounds of objection to the grant of probate.

Such fact is distinguishable from the case at hand where the caveat has

been sought to be discharged on the ground of non-filing of affidavit in

support of the caveat. Thus, the ratio of the said decision does not apply to

the facts of this case.

22. The decision in Prabir Chandra Sen (Deceased) (supra) has been cited

on behalf of the petitioner, mother of the deceased, to place the definition

of citation. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said decision has

observed that an order granting probate or letters of administration is an

order in rem. So, it is necessary to give widest publicity regarding the filing

of a probate proceedings or one for letters of administration. Citation is the

only method to extend the scope. Therefore, it goes without saying that the

issuance of citation in a proceeding for grant of probate or letters of

administration is mandatory, which has to be adhered strictly in order to

maintain the transparency of the proceeding for grant.

23. In R.S lodha (supra) this court after considering the decision of several

other High Courts including this Court observed that once application for

grant is filed, it does not lose its original character and remains the same

and only the method of trial is changed when there has been contest.

There cannot be any quarrel to such proposition as advanced on behalf of

the petitioner in this regard relying on the aforesaid decision.

24. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to give

opportunity to the caveator to file her affidavit in support of her caveat

particularly in the circumstances where in the instant proceeding citation

is yet to be issued and the copy of the application for grant of letters of

administration has not been served upon the respondent, widow of the

deceased. The court is required to see that a person having interest in the

estate of the deceased is not unduly denied of her right to contest the

proceeding for grant of letters of administration, moreso, when she is the

widow and legal heir of the deceased. This court finds substance in the

submissions of Mr. Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent relying on

Hemendra Prasad Barooah (deceased) (supra).

25. Accordingly, the application being GA 6 of 2023 for discharge of the

caveat is hereby dismissed.

26. Learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner, Smt. Rama Sen, is

directed to serve copy of the application for grant of letters of

administration upon learned advocate on record of the respondent-

caveatrix within a week from date. The respondent-caveatrix shall file her

affidavit in support of the caveat within a period of two weeks from date of

service of the copy of the application for grant of letters of administration.

In default, the caveat shall stand discharged.

27. Since caveat has already been filed by the respondent, hence prayer

for filing fresh caveat is uncalled for.

28. Accordingly, GA 5 of 2023 is disposed of as follows:

(i) Let there be orders in terms of prayer (a) and (c) of the Master's

Summons of GA 5 of 2023.

(ii) Prayer (b) of the Master's Summons of GA 5 of 2023 is rejected.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)