K.R Shriram, J.:— In the order dated 10th February 2017, in the cause title, the words ‘CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 333 OF 2016’ is corrected to read as ‘CAVEAT IN TEST. SUIT NO. 333 OF 2016’. Rest of the order remains unaltered. Corrections be incorporated in the original order.
2. Ms. Patel states that there are certain issues required to be added. On the last occasion also Ms. Patel was told to come with draft issues that she wants to be added. Ms. Patel today sates that she had given a list of draft issues. We are unable to locate that in the Court records and proceedings. I asked Ms. Patel to give a fresh copy. Ms. Patel refused. Stand over after six weeks.
3. Shri Barve for the petitioner states that he has received a copy of an application on behalf of respondent no. 2 today. Shri Barve states that he would like to file reply to this and seeks four weeks since he was served a copy only yesterday. Time granted.
4. Mr. Deepak Vinayak Mehta, respondent no. 2 is present in Court and states that the Probate granted in Petition No. 23 of 209 on 4 September 2009 be revoked. He states that he does not wish to go ahead with the Probate. At the same time, I find that there is another respondent, i.e, respondent no. 1-Rajendra Vinayak Mehta. He is not present in Court nor is there anything from him in writing. Therefore both the respondents are directed to give in writing to this Court that they do not wish to go ahead with the Probate granted.
5. Stand over to 7 April 2017 for directions.