Judgment S. K. Chattopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties on the petitioners at Flags 5 and 6. The petition (Flag-5) under consideration is one under Sec.284 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed on behalf of Mst. Gayatri Devi, wife of late Rajo Singh. This caveat has been filed though on behalf of said Gayatri Devi but it has been verified by one Dwarka Singh, son of late Ganga Prasad Singh who has described himself as the sisters son of the caveator, namely, Gayatri Devi. In verification portion, it has been stated that Dwarika Singh has been authorised to make pairvi of the present case, In affidavit portion of the petition, Dwarka singh has stated that Gayatri Devi is an old woman and suffering from various ailments and as such she has authorised him to swear affidavit on her behalf. 2. The objector has objected to the grant of probate solely on the ground that the applicant executor has produced a forged and fabricated document in the form of will and late Rajo Singh had not executed the said will on 19-5-1972. Other various objections have been raised by the objector for grant of probate of the said will. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant to the aforesaid caveat filed on behalf of Gayatri Devi. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated, inter alia, that Gayatri Devi is aunt of the petitioner, namely, Ramawatar Singh and she is not altogether an illiterate lady rather can put her signature very well in Hindi. The Vakalatnama surprisingly does not bear the signature of Gayatri Devi and as such the said Vakalatnama cannot be said to have been executed by Smt Gayatri devi. It is stated that as a matter of fact Gayatri Devi had no reason whatsoever to contest the present proceeding and the will in question, inasmuch as, her interest has been retained by the aforesaid will. As a matter of fact, gayatri Devi has been given life interest in all the properties to enjoy the same according to her wish during her lifetime. She is in possession of the said property and enjoying the usufructs therefrom and so there is no reason for Gayatri Devi to contest the said will. As a matter of fact, gayatri Devi has been given life interest in all the properties to enjoy the same according to her wish during her lifetime. She is in possession of the said property and enjoying the usufructs therefrom and so there is no reason for Gayatri Devi to contest the said will. It is stated that Late Rajo Singh and Gayatri Devi have no issue and as her interest has been protected by the said will, there does not seem any intention for her to contest the present proceeding. In a nutshell, it is stated by the petitioner executor that keeping gayatri Devi in background, some one is pulling string from behind in order to grab the entire property of Late Rajo Singh and thereby trying to oust said Gayatri Devi even from her life interest. 4. From the record, it appears that a petition was filed earlier on 9-4-91 on behalf of Gayatri Devi which was affidavited by one Manorama devi, wife of Late Ram Khelawan Singh, stated to be Bhabi of Gayatri Devi. In this petition prayer was made for transferring this testamentary case to the Court of District Judge, Gaya, on the ground that as Gayatri Devi is old and not in a position to move and as such cannot even appear in person before this Court for giving evidence. By order dated 13-12-1991, after hearing the parties, the said partition was dismissed by this Court. 5. Again a petition was filed on behalf of Gayatri Devi on 9-4 91 affidavited by said Manorma Devi. In the said petition prayer was made to dismiss the present testamentary case on the ground stated therein. The prayer was again rejected by this Court by order dated 27-3-1992 with observation, that if objector intends to object to the grant of letters of administration, she could file a caveat as provided under the law. 6. After rejection the second petition on 27-3-92, it appears from the record that no caveat was filed and on 10-7-92, P. W.1 was examined and was discharged. On 31-7-92, P. W.2 was examined and was discharged and the case was directed to be put up for further hearing on 7-8-92. The case was adjourned on several dates. On 25-5-93, ultimately a caveat was filed which was affidavited by another person, namely, Dwarika Singh stated to be sisters son of Gayatri Devi, the caveator. On 31-7-92, P. W.2 was examined and was discharged and the case was directed to be put up for further hearing on 7-8-92. The case was adjourned on several dates. On 25-5-93, ultimately a caveat was filed which was affidavited by another person, namely, Dwarika Singh stated to be sisters son of Gayatri Devi, the caveator. In affidavit portion, Dwarika singh has stated that Gayatri Devi is an old woman and suffering from various ailments, as such, she has authorised him to swear affidavit on her behalf. On the same date, another petition was filed (F1ag-6) with a prayer to recall the witnesses for cross-examination who have already been examined on behalf of the applicant and were discharged. On such petition being filed, on 20-8-93, the office put up a note pointing out that the caveat (Flag-5) is not in the form as set forth in Schedule 5 as requ/red under section 284 (4) of the Act, It further pointed out that the affidavit in support of the aforesaid caveat should have been filed within 8 (eight) days from the date of filing of the caveat, as provided in Rule 18 of Chapter XI, Part 2 of the Patna High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) but the said affidavit has not been filed within the prescribed time On such note being given by the office on 20-8-1993, an affidavit (Flag-8) on behalf of the caveator was filed on 9-11-93, as required under the provisions of Patna High court Rules. In paragraph-3 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the detailed objection which was filed under Sec.284 of the Act on 21-5-93 should be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit. This affidavit has also been sworn by said Dwarika Singh stated to the sisters son of Gayatri Devi, the caveator. On 16-11-93, another caveat or (Flag-7) was filed, as required under Sec.281 (4) of the Act. This petition does not give any detail regarding objection to the grant of probate/letter of administration but only gives form of caveat. This petition has simply been signed by said Dwarika singh on behalf of Gayatri Devi, There is no date under the signature of dwarika Singh. There is even no L. T. I. of Gayatri Devi which could suggest that this petition was actually filed on the instruction of said Gayatri Devi. 7. Mr. This petition has simply been signed by said Dwarika singh on behalf of Gayatri Devi, There is no date under the signature of dwarika Singh. There is even no L. T. I. of Gayatri Devi which could suggest that this petition was actually filed on the instruction of said Gayatri Devi. 7. Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the objector, has submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and mainly the reasons for authorising other relatives to file caveat by Gayatri Devi, grounds set-forth should be taken as good grounds for allowing the caveat though filed at a belated stage. It is submitted that in view of Rule 21 of the Rules as soon as the affidavit in support of the caveat is filed, the proceeding shall be treated as a suit and the affidavit filed by the caveator should be treated as a written statement in the suit. Relying on this provision, learned counsel for the caveator has submitted that since the affidavit is filed, the proceeding should be converted into a title suit and under the Civil Procedure Code, the affidavit filed should be treated as a written statement. Relying on Rule 17 of the Rules, learned counsel for the caveator submitted that it is not necessary that the object must file a caveat personally. It is submitted that caveator can personally or through her pleader file caveat. In this case, the caveat has been filed on behalf of Gayatri Devi, the objector though not personally but though some of her relatives. In such view of the matter, delay in filing the affidavit cannot be a ground for discharging the caveat by this Court. 8. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-executor on the other hand has submitted that from the nature of several petitions filed from time to time on behalf of Gayatri Devi it reveals that some persons who are interested in grabbing the estate of Late Rajo Singh are not allowing this Gayatri Devi to come in picture. Referring to the vakalatnama filed by Gayatri Devi on 22-2-91 and the Vakalatnama filed on 21-5-93 along with petition at Flag-5, Mr. Das has submitted that comparing the two L, T. Is put on these two Vakalatnamas will clearly show that these two L. T. Is are of different persons. Referring to the vakalatnama filed by Gayatri Devi on 22-2-91 and the Vakalatnama filed on 21-5-93 along with petition at Flag-5, Mr. Das has submitted that comparing the two L, T. Is put on these two Vakalatnamas will clearly show that these two L. T. Is are of different persons. Moreover office note date 26-2-91, it appears that though Gayatri Devi appeared through Vakalatname but written statement was not filed on that date. 9. Learned counsel for the caveator could not explain as to why through Gayatri Devi appeared through her counsel on 21-5-93 no caveat was filed on that date. 10. It is urged further by Mr Das that the objector was being represented by her lawyer from before, but even then no caveat was filed immediately after the order dated 27-3-1992, rejecting her petition. The caveator was aware of examination of two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner-executor but no immediate step was taken for filing caveat. It was only on 21-5-1993 a petition under Sec.284 of the Act was filed without any affidavit. No reasonable ground has been assigned for such omission on the part of the alleged caveator. Mr. Das has also drawn my attention to the fact and submitted that whereas petitions at Flags-1 and 2 have been affidavit by one Manorama devi describing herself to be Bhabi of the objector Gayatri Devi, surprisingly enough the petition at Flags-5, 6 and 8 have been affidavited by one dwarika Singh describing himself as sisters son of Gayatri Devi. In her affidavit, Manorama Devi stated that she was authorised by Gayatri Devi to swear the affidavit on her behalf whereas in other petitions, Dwarika Singh also stated that "she has authorised me to swear affidavit on her behalf as I am authorised me to swear affidavit on her behalf as I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case. " 11. Referring to Paragraph-15 of the petition at Flag-5, Mr. Das has submitted that the reason for not filing the caveat within time given in this paragraph cannot be believed With reference to the statements made in the counter-affidavit, specially Paragraph-8 of the same, it is submitted that jamuna Singh was a veteran criminal of the locality having cases of rape and kidnapping against him and he had no connection with Gayatri Devi. It is submitted that that said Jamuna Singh was killed on 21-9-91 and there is nothing on record to show that this Jamuna Singh was ever the pairvikar of gayatri Devi Referring to various uncontroverted statements made in the counter-affidavit, Mr. Das has submitted that the very nature of steps taken by various persons allegedly to be on behalf of Gayatri Devi, are ample evidence to show that Gayatri Devi is actually a puppet in the hands of these unscrupulous persons who want to grab the estate of late Rajo Singh in order to deprive Gayatri Devi. 12. Referring to Rule 18 of the Rules, it is next submitted by Mr. Das that as the affidavit was rot filed within 8 (eight) days of the caveat being lodged, as required under the Rules, the caveat must be discharged by this court in view of mandatory provisions as laid down in Rule 20 of the Rules. Mr. Das further submitted that the caveator cannot take the plea that she had no knowledge of the present proceeding, inasmuch as, the first Vakalatnama was filed by her on 22-2-91 and as such caveat, if any, should have been filed well within time It is further submitted that even after the order dated 27-3-92, objector filed her caveat after 12 months, i. e.21-5-93 and that too without an affidavit or proper form as required under the Act. It is lastly submitted that in no circumstances, the witnesses who have already been examined on behalf of the petitioner executor in this Court can be recalled for cross-examination, inasmuch as, the whole game of the person/persons behind this frivolous objection is to stall as well as to delay the disposal of the present proceeding. 13. After hearing the parties at length. I am of the opinion that argument of Mr. Das is well found. It is surprising that even after the rejection of both the petitions at Flags-1 and 2, no step whatsoever was taken on behalf of the objector to file the caveat. The caveat was filed much after the order dated 27-3-92 and even after examination of two witnesses before this Court, No reasonable explanation has been given as to why when the caveator was represented by a lawyer right from 22-2-1991, no step was taken to file the caveat at least before the examination of witnesses on behalf of the applicant-executor. The caveat was filed much after the order dated 27-3-92 and even after examination of two witnesses before this Court, No reasonable explanation has been given as to why when the caveator was represented by a lawyer right from 22-2-1991, no step was taken to file the caveat at least before the examination of witnesses on behalf of the applicant-executor. Secondly it is also not explained as to under what circumastances. Manorama Devi who was said to have been authorised by Gayatri Devi to swear the affidavit on her behalf in two earlier petitions, namely Flags-1 and 2, have been removed and in her place, dwarika Singh was authorised to swear affidavit by Gayatri Devi in subsequent petitions. Moreover, there is no document to show that Gayatri devi ever authorised either Manorama Devi or Dwarika Singh. It is only their own statements which under the facts and circumstances cannot be believed. 14. From bare perusal of the provisions as laid down in Rules 17 to 20 of the Rules, it is clear that there is some time limit for filing affidavit in support of the caveat which admittedly has not been done in this case. 15. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the opinion that the caveat petition filed on behalf of Gayatri Devi cannot be entertained and as such the caveat at Flag-5 is dismissed. 16. The petition at F1ag-6 is for recalling the witnesses already dismissed. As I have already dismissed the petition at Flag-5, in my opinion that petition at FIag-6 has no merit and as such the same is also dismissed. 17. Let this case be listed for further hearing on the next assigned date. Petition dismissed.