B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications are directed against the orders dated 29th June, 1994 and 14th July, 1994 respectively passed by the Additional District Judge. 11th Court, Alipore in Original Suit 5 of 1991 and Misc. Case 16 of 1994 arising out of the Original suit 5 of 1991 on an application for review filed by the revisionist against the order dated 29th June, 1994. Both the revisions were heard together and are disposed of hereunder. ( 2 ) ONE Mrs. Mary Winfred Earle died on 30th August, 1950 leaving a will under which she is said in have bequeathed all her properties in favour of two surviving sons, namely. Redmound E. M. Earle and Neville Williams. Earle Redmound was appointed as Executor in the said will. Undisputedly Redmound took out the probate of the will as an Executor. The eldest son of Mrs. Mary Winfred Earle, Clearance Borderick EIwin Earle, predeceased his mother leaving behind his widow and the petitioner. As such the petitioner is the elder brother's daughter of Redmound Earle and Neville Earle. Redmound and Neville died unmarried and the petitioner claims herself to be the sole heir and next of their kin. Petitioner's father and her mother died in London and she also has been residing there. ( 3 ) NEVILLE Williams Earle died on 18th June, 1958 as bachelor and after his death, his elder brother R. P. M. Earle died on 7. 11. 63. ( 4 ) IN the event of death of Neville Earle one Sasibhusan Dutta was allegedly appointed as an Executor of the will purported to have been executed by Neville. He had, however, never applied before the learned District Judge, Alipore for grant of probate. Although Neville died on 18th June, 1958 no attempt was made for getting the probate of the alleged will of Neville before the death of Redmoun which took place on 7. 11. 83. The present application for probate was filed by the opposite party D'cruz on 1. 12. 80. Before the imitation of this proceeding one G. C. Seal filed an application for grant of probate as an Executor of the alleged will of Redmound and it was dismissed on contest by the teamed Distrct Judge on the ground that the said will was not valid and binding and property executed by Redmound. 12. 80. Before the imitation of this proceeding one G. C. Seal filed an application for grant of probate as an Executor of the alleged will of Redmound and it was dismissed on contest by the teamed Distrct Judge on the ground that the said will was not valid and binding and property executed by Redmound. Against the decision of the learned District Judge the executor fled an appeal which is pending in this court where the present petitioner has been arraigned as a respondent. ( 5 ) IN the application filed by the opposite party D'cruz praying for grant of letter of administration in respect of the alleged will of Neville the petitioner was not added as a respondent although she was the next kin of the testator Neville. It is claimed by the petitioner that D'cruz deliberately suppressed that the petitioner Mrs. A. M. Somersett was the only heir of Neville and that she was entitled to be served with citation in respect of the said proceeding. The opposite party D'cruz was well aware that the petitioner Mrs. Somersett was the elder brother's daughter of Neville. But, however, the proceeding under which the opposite party had claimed letters of administration was dismissed. Thereafter the opposite party D'cruz filed an appeal before this court which was registered as appeal from original decree No. 258 of 1988. ( 6 ) THIS court by the decision of the Division Bench remitted the matter to the learned District Court with a direction for re-determination of the issue relating to the maintainability in terms of the provisions of section 237 of the Indian Succession Act. This court also incidentally observed that the other findings made by the court below are not interfered with and stand affirmed. G. C. Seal and others filed special appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was eventually decided upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this court and inter alia. the order of remand was maintained. After the remand when the matter appeared before the learned District Judge the petitioner had filed an application through her power of attorney under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) to be impleaded as a party-defendant on the ground that she is the neice of R. P. M. Earle and Neville Williams Earle. the order of remand was maintained. After the remand when the matter appeared before the learned District Judge the petitioner had filed an application through her power of attorney under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) to be impleaded as a party-defendant on the ground that she is the neice of R. P. M. Earle and Neville Williams Earle. It is asserted in her application that she is the only heir and successor of Neville and Williams Earle who has been residing at C, Grove Cadbury Heath. Warmly, Bristol B. S. 15a. G. in U. K. The application was presented by her power of attorney Mr. B. Anthony Jennings which was executed on 24th March, 1994 and it was authenticated by the High Commissioner of India in London on 28th March, 1994. The said application was registered by the plaintiff and the respondent G. C. Seal on the ground that the petitioner was not competent to lodge such an application after it was remanded by this court because the suit has been remanded on limited ground to find out that the provisions of section 237 of the Indian Succession Act were complied with. Since only the maintainability of the suit is left open for decision under section 237 of the Indian Succession Act, the petitioner should not be granted a chance to be impleaded as respondent whereby there might be every chance of reopening of the hearing. Another objection had been taken that the petitioner had earlier filed an application through her constituted attorney to be added as a party on 26. 8. 93 which was disposed of on contest on 19th January. 1994 whereby the application was rejected on account of non-production of the original power of attorney. ( 7 ) THE learned District Judge while accepting the contention of the respondent/opposite party rejected the petition filed by the revisionist. ( 8 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing has vehemently argued that the petitioner being only nearest relation of alleged testator Neville she should have been cited as a party. The above acts/omission on the part of D'cruz would tantamount to acts of deliberate fraud. ( 8 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing has vehemently argued that the petitioner being only nearest relation of alleged testator Neville she should have been cited as a party. The above acts/omission on the part of D'cruz would tantamount to acts of deliberate fraud. It is further argued that there was a newspaper publication by the petitioner through her solicitors inviting attention that several documents, valuable title deeds in respect of the estate of R. P. M. Earle were stolen and the persons were warned not to deal with or negotiate in regard to the said properties. In the above background it was incumbent on the respondent D'cruz to implead her as a party in the proceeding. From the further contention it appears that though an application tiled by the petitioner was rejected on earlier occasion on a technical consideration, i. e. for non-filing of the original power of attorney that objection cannot be a ground of rejection of second application filed by her, inasmuch as this power of attorney was executed in favour of a different person and it was presented in court. ( 9 ) MR. Jahar Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 has highlighted that there was a general citation made by the plaintiff inviting objection from any interested party opposing the grant of letters of administration. It is not understood when the revisionist claims to be the nearest kith and kin of the testator what prevented her from filing the said application to be added as a party. She had full knowledge of the proceeding. On earlier occasions she came to the house of the plaintiff and stayed with him. The correspondence between the petitioner and the plaintiff would, however, reveal that she has had knowledge regarding the filing of this application. The first application filed to be added as a party was dismissed on 26th August, 1993 and the petitioner did not challenge by filing revision against the said order. Another application was filed on the basis of a fresh power of attorney giving authority to the Brian Anthony Jennings. There is no averment in the second power of attorney that the delegation of power to the first power of attorney holder was cancelled. Another application was filed on the basis of a fresh power of attorney giving authority to the Brian Anthony Jennings. There is no averment in the second power of attorney that the delegation of power to the first power of attorney holder was cancelled. In that view of the matter the rejection order passed by the learned District Judge is not open to challenge in this court. ( 10 ) MR. Ajit Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3 has also supported Mr. Jahar Chakraborty's contention. ( 11 ) WHILE considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to state the admitted facts. The plaintiff Augustine Robert D'cruz filed the application under section 237 of the Indian Succession Act praying for letters of administration in respect of the last will purported in have been executed by one Neville William Earle on the allegation that the original will lost or misplaced and not available to be produced in court for grant of letters of administration. The petitioner who sought to be added as a party is the daughter of the pre-deceased brother of Neville William Earls, she was not served with any citation of notice or process. She filed an application for addition of party in August, 1993 though Gerald Emile Moses, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge for want of production of original power of attorney on 18th January, 1994. The petitioner filed another application through her power of attorney which was authenticated before the Indian High Commissioner in U. K. under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The original suit filed by D'cruz was remitted by a judgment of Division Bench of this court on 4th December, 1992 remanding the same for re-determination of the issues regarding the maintainability of the suit under section 237 of the Indian Succession Act. The Division Bench judgment of this court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While maintaining the Division Bench's order, it directed the learned filth Additional District Judge, Alipore to dispose it of on determining the issues relation to the maintainability in terms of section 237 of the Indian Succession Act. ( 12 ) IN the instant case it is found later alia, that the petitioner was not served with a notice nor was she cited as a party by the plaintiff. ( 12 ) IN the instant case it is found later alia, that the petitioner was not served with a notice nor was she cited as a party by the plaintiff. It is settled principle of law that any interest, however, be slight and even the bare possibility of interest is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose testamentary paper even in a case where the person is not entitled to get compulsory citation, but the citation is discretionary. The absence of such citation to such a person also will invalidate the grant in certain circumstances. In this connection reliance can be placed on AIR 1970 Calcutta page 433, where this court has held:"in the circumstances, even if it be found that she was not entitled to a compulsory citation, she was a person who was claiming some interest in the properties as the widow of Sarat, and there was a possibility of her interest in the properties left by Sarat, and in the circumstances, without going into vital question as in whether Annapurna was the legally married wife of Sarat, the Court below should have revoked the grant, and considered granting it only in presence of Annapurna. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned District Judge cannot stand, and must be, and hereby is, set aside". ( 13 ) IN the aforementioned case it was noticed that the letters of administration which was granted to the plaintiff had been revoked on the application filed by the petitioner who had an interest over the property, in the instant case when the judgment has not yet been pronounced and the matter was remanded by this court for retrial, it is not understood why prayer of the petitioner should be rejected. In another decision reporter in 49 CWN page 713 in the case of Haripada Saha and Anr. v Ghanashyam Saha and Anr. It has been held"having heard the learned Advocate on both sides. It seems to us that in the present case the Court below should not have refused the petitioners an opportunity to contest the probate proceedings. It is well settled that any interest, however, slight, and even the bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat in a probate proceeding. We need not express any opinion on the merits of the case at the present stage. It is well settled that any interest, however, slight, and even the bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat in a probate proceeding. We need not express any opinion on the merits of the case at the present stage. but a question of construction might arise as regards the character of the interest which Subasini took in the property bequeathed to her by her husband; and so long as there is room for argument, we think that nobody should be denied the opportunity of making his submission to the court in regard to the validity or otherwise of any testamentary document. We, therefore, make this Rule absolute, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and direct that the petitioners be allowed an opportunity to enter caveat in the probate proceedings. " ( 14 ) IN an application for probate or letters of administration if the near relatives are left out, the proceedings will be defective and in some cases letters of administration is liable to be revoked. Since the petitioner admittedly is the daughter of the pre-deceased brother of the testator, I am at a loss to understand why prayer to be impleaded as a party should be spurned. ( 15 ) MR. Jahar Chakraborty, learned counsel vehemently argued that in the first occasion the petitioner filed such an application through her power of attorney but since the original power of attorney could not be produced, the application for addition was rejected. She did not challenge such order by filing a revision. Again after execution of another power of attorney she filed this present application to be added as a party. Therefore, in the above context she should not be allowed to make a further application to be added as a party when her first application which was rejected by the court below was not challenged in the High Court by tiling a revisional application. 1 am unable to appreciate the contention of Mr. Chakraborty since in a pending suit when the applicant has a recurring cause of action can make such application notwithstanding the earlier rejection of such prayer. From the next contention of Mr. 1 am unable to appreciate the contention of Mr. Chakraborty since in a pending suit when the applicant has a recurring cause of action can make such application notwithstanding the earlier rejection of such prayer. From the next contention of Mr. Chakraborty it appears that since she had knowledge about the pendency of the proceeding and she did not chose to prefer any application to be added as a party on earlier occasion, such application should not be entertained at this belated stage. It is to be remembered that the courts do exist to advance the cause of justice and not to hinder it and that justice must not be a handmaid to technalities. Mr. Chakraborty drew my attention to a number of letters purported to have been signed by the petitioner to his client. On a careful reading of those letters it would only spell out that the reference was made to a litigation between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner. Therefore, in this background it cannot be argued that she had knowledge regarding the present litigation. Strong reliance was placed by the respondent No. 1 on the Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act but 1 found such contention cuts no tee since in a pending litigation a party if he can satisfy the court that he has an ostensible interest over the property can file an application to be added as party. Thus the contention that Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act shall hold good to the present case is bound to be rejected. ( 16 ) ON the conspectus of the case and after going through the contention raised by the parties 1 felt that the application filed by the petitioner for addition should have been allowed by the court below. Accordingly the revisional application succeeds and she may be added as a party in O. S. 5 of 1981 as defendant. ( 17 ) IN the result, the order Nos. 140 dated 29. 6. 94 and 145 dated 14. 7. 94 are accordingly set aside. Both the revisions are allowed but in the circumstances without cost. . , allowed