ORDER
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
1. This application dated May 15th, 2006 has been taken out by the caveator (Dinesh Kumar Sharma) in connection with the application for probate filed in this Court by one Biswanath Chatterjee as petitioner. He prayed for probate of a Will dated April 21st, 1999 stated to have been executed by one Ranjan Chatterjee who died on April 12th, 2005. He is contesting this application of the caveator without filing any opposition.
2. Special citation was issued, and it was served on the caveator on March 10th, 2006. He lodged the caveat on March 16th, 2006. According to provisions in Rule 25 of Chapter 35 of the Original Side rules of this Court, he was to file the affidavit in support of his caveat within eight days from March 16th, 2006, i.e. within March 24th, 2006. He filed the affidavit on March 24th, 2006. Now he wants an order permitting him to file a Supplementary affidavit in support of his caveat.
3. His case is that advocate conducting the case, because of inexperience, committed the mistakes that in the affidavit his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the application were not clearly stated. His further case is that since proceedings initiated by him on the basis of another Will of the deceased dated October 12th, 1996 are pending before another Court, he should not be deprived of the opportunity of contesting the application of the petitioner.
4. Counsel submits that there can be no dispute that the caveator is a person interested, since in his application for probate the petitioner himself wanted citation to be issued to the caveator. His submission is that for fault of the advocate the caveator may not be deprived of the opportunity of opposing the application, particularly when as the sole legatee in a previous Will of the deceased he had already applied for letters of administration He files the supplementary affidavit, also dated May 15th , 2006, stating the grounds on which the caveator wants to oppose the application for probate.
5. On the strength of the decisions of this Court in Draupadi Dasya v. Rajkumari Dasya and Ors. reported at 22 CWN 564, and Shethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Pvt. Ltd. reported at , he argues that in the interest of justice the caveator should be permitted to file the supplementary affidavit. He says that in view of the provisions in Rule 46 of Chapter 38 of the original side rules of this Court, time to file an appropriate affidavit in support of the caveat can be extended.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the caveator has not come with clean hands, because this application was taken out only after the application under Rule 27 for discharge of the caveat was taken out by his client. His argument is that the documents in connection with the application for probate were inspected on March 27th, 2006, and hence it cannot be accepted that till May 15th, 2006 the caveator had no idea that his affidavit filed in support of the caveat needed amendment.
7. He argues that since provisions in Rule 25 spoke only of affidavit, there is no scope to permit the caveator to file a supplementary affidavit. His contention is that since the vague affidavit filed by the caveator did not satisfy the requirements of provisions in Rule 25, a valuable right accrued to the petitioner to seek discharge of the caveat in terms of provisions in Rule 27. He points out that the caveator never applied for extension of time to file the affidavit, though nothing had, prevented him from doing that.
8. It is true that not only in the affidavit in support of his caveat the caveator did not clearly state his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the petitioner’s application for probate, but he also has taken out this application after the period within which he was to’ file the affidavit. But then, the questions are whether the Court possesses the power to grant leave to the caveator to file a supplementary affidavit in support of his caveat, and whether, on the facts, such power, if available, should be exercised.
9. I am unable to agree with counsel for the petitioner that in such a case as the present one no order can be made granting permission to a caveator to file a supplementary affidavit. In my view, the Court can exercise the power under Rule 46 of Chapter 38 or the inherent power to permit a caveator to file an out of time supplementary affidavit in support of his caveat, particularly when he filed the original affidavit within the period mentioned in Rule 25, under which he could have duly filed more than one affidavit, since that spoke of “affidavit or affidavits.” In my opinion, if it is necessary in the interest of justice, then in a fit and proper case the caveator can be permitted to file a supplementary affidavit in support of his caveat.
10. An order under Rule 27 can be obtained only when no affidavit in support of the caveat is filed within the time fixed in Rule 25. Whether a caveat is to be discharged by an order made under Rule 25 is a matter of discretion of the Court, as opposed to the mandate given by Rule 30. It is therefore clear that in an application under Rule 27, or in an application such as the present one, there is no scope or reason to examine whether the affidavit or affidavits disclose the caveator’s interest. That is an exercise to be undertaken when an application under Rule 30 is allowed directing trial of a preliminary issue as to the caveators interest.
11. As to the present case, I am of the view that the caveator should be permitted to file the supplementary affidavit. A previous Will also stated to have been executed by the deceased has emerged through the caveator, who has already initiated proceedings before another forum in connection with that. Whether that Will is of any consequence will be a question for decision at the appropriate stage of these proceedings.
12. I am unable to accept the contention that the present move of the caveator must be treated as afterthought. It seems to me that he has come up with a bona fide case that his advocate, because of inexperience, did not take necessary steps for filing an exhaustive affidavit within the time, or for seeking extension of time to file the affidavit. In my view, refusal of leave to the caveator to file supplementary affidavit will cause manifest injustice to him. I do not think an order granting leave will cause any grave injustice or loss or prejudice to the petitioner.
13. For these reasons, I allow this application and order that the supplementary affidavit dated May 15th, 2006 filed in Court today shall be treated as part of the affidavit filed by the caveator (on March 24th, 2006) in support of his caveat lodged on March 16th, 2006. On account of costs of this application the caveator shall pay rupees ten thousand within three weeks from date.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of this order. In my view, there is no reason to make a stay order. The trial stage is yet to come. Hence I reject the prayer for stay.
All parties shall act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order and also an urgent certified xerox copy thereof both to be supplied on the usual undertakings.