REVISED ORDER M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioner is the third defendant in O.S. 10 of 1987 of the Additional District Court, Trichur. He challenges the order In I.A. 551 of 1990 allowing amendment of the plaint. The suit was originally filed as O.P. 2 of 1980 for the grant of probate along with the will attached thereto. As the revision petitioner contested the petition, it was converted as an Original Suit. Respondent (plaintiff) wanted amendment of the plaint to alter the prayer as one for grant of letters of administration instead of grant of probate. The Additional District Judge allowed the petition overruling the objection of the revision petitioner that the suit is barred by limitation under Art.137 of the Limitation Act. 2. Revision Petitioner contended that as the suit is barred by limitation as the respondent did not file it within three years of the death of the testator as provided under Art.137 of the Limitation Act the amendment should not have been allowed. Respondent's contention is that for the grant of probate or letters of administration no period of limitation is provided either under the Indian Succession act or Limitation Act. 3. Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on Kerala State Electricity Board v. J. P. Kunhaliumma ( AIR 1977 S.C. 282 ) and contended that Art.137 of the Limitation Act would apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court and that being the law there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that for probate and letters of administration proceedings there is no period of limitation. That was a case where compensation was claimed for the trees out and removed from the property by the Kerala State Electricity Board. The date of cutting was well known to the petitioner who claimed enhanced compensation. So necessarily he ought to have made the claim within three years as held by the Supreme Court. In a probate or letters of administration proceedings it may not be known to the applicant about the existence of a will immediately after the death of the testator. There may be a case where the applicant became aware of the existence of the will long after the death of the testator. In a probate or letters of administration proceedings it may not be known to the applicant about the existence of a will immediately after the death of the testator. There may be a case where the applicant became aware of the existence of the will long after the death of the testator. It is indeed difficult to hold that proceedings for probate or letters of administration should be initiated within three years of the death of the testator or else it would be barred. 4. Under the Limitation Act no period is prescribed for filing a petition for probate or letters of administration or succession certificate. There is no basis to hold that within a particular time one has to initiate proceedings for probate or letters of administration. Depending upon facts and circumstances of each case the right to apply for probate or letters of administration might become necessary even beyond three years from the date of the death of the testator. One such instance may be when a party came to know of the will long after the testator's death. Whenever there is delay it has to be explained. Though delay may cause suspicion about the will, it cannot be held that the application is barred by limitation under Art.137 as it may not be possible to find out as to when the right to apply accrued. 5. In Vasudev Daulatram v. Sajni Prem (AIR 1983 Bombay 268) the Court held that under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made. Thus an application for probate or letters of administration cannot be rejected at the threshold as time-barred by invoking Art.137. As it may not be possible to find out as to when the right to apply accrued in an application for grant of probate or letters of administration, there cannot be any starting point of the period of limitation. The right to apply for a probate accrues from day to day so long as the will remains unprobated. As the right to apply accrues every day and the cause of action for an application for probate arises every moment so long as the will remains unprobated, revision petitioner's contention that the suit is barred by limitation is not tenable. The right to apply for a probate accrues from day to day so long as the will remains unprobated. As the right to apply accrues every day and the cause of action for an application for probate arises every moment so long as the will remains unprobated, revision petitioner's contention that the suit is barred by limitation is not tenable. Ramanand Thakur v. Parmanand Thakur (AIR 1982 Patna 87) of the Division bench of Patna High Court is an authoritative decision on this point. In a recent decision (1990-1-L. W. 337) a Division bench of the Madras High Court held that Art.137 of the Limitation Act will not apply to proceedings filed for grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the will annexed. In view of the settled legal position, there is no merit in the contention of the revision petitioner that the suit is barred by limitation and hence the amendment of pleadings will be a sheer exercise in futility. There is no merit in the C.R.P. C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.