( 1 ) THIS application dated May 10th, 2006 has been taken out by the petitioner in PLA No. 27 of 2006. He prays for an order discharging the caveat in terms of provisions in R. 27 of Ch. 35 of the Original side Rules of this Court. ( 2 ) THE ground on which he wants discharge of the caveat is that in the affidavit in support of his caveat the caveator did not state his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the application for probate. Counsel submits that a reading of the affidavit will show that the caveator failed to comply with the requirements of provisions in R. 25. ( 3 ) DURING pendency of this application the caveator took out in application (G. A. No. 1813 of 2006) for leave to file a supplementary affidavit. By my order made today i have allowed that application. In the supplementary affidavit the caveator has stated his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the application for probate. The order made in G. A. Mo. 1813 of 2006 is set out below : "the Court. 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. 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 R. 25 of Ch. 35 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, he was to file the affidavit in support of him 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. ( 4 ) 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. Now he wants an order permitting him to file a supplementary affidavit, in support of his caveat. ( 4 ) 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. ( 5 ) 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. ( 6 ) ON the strength of the decisions of this Court in Draupadi Dasya v. Rajkumari dasya, reported at (1918) 22 CWN 564 : (AIR 1919 Cal 1012) and Shethia mining and Manufacturing corporation Ltd. v. Khas dharmaband Colliery, reported at AIR 1982 cal 413 , 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 R. 46 of Ch. 38 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, time to file an appropriate affidavit in support of the caveat can be extended. ( 7 ) 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 R. 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. 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. ( 8 ) HE argues that since provisions in R. 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 R. 25, a valuable right accrued to the petitioner to seek discharge of the caveat in terms of provisions in R. 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. ( 9 ) 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 objections 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 question 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. ( 10 ) 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 R. 46 of Ch. 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 R. 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. 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. ( 11 ) AN order under R. 27 can be obtained only when no affidavit in support of the caveat is filed within the time fixed in R. 25. Whether a caveat is to be discharged by an order made under R. 25 is a matter of discretion of the Court, as opposed to the mandate given by R. 30. It is therefore clear that in an application under R. 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 R. 30 is allowed directing trial of a preliminary issue as to the caveator's interest. ( 12 ) 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. ( 13 ) 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. ( 14 ) 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. ( 14 ) 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. ( 15 ) 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. ( 16 ) 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. " ( 17 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that statements made in the supplementary affidavit will not as well be sufficient to show that the caveator has any interest. In my view, the question whether the caveator has disclosed any interest can be decided after the present stage and before an order is made under R. 28 directing the proceedings to be numbered as a suit, only if the petitioner gets an order under R. 30 directing the trial of a preliminary issue for that purpose. ( 18 ) AT this stage it is only to be seen whether in support of his caveat the caveator has filed the affidavit stating his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the application. Admittedly he filed the affidavit and has been permitted to file a supplementary affidavit as well. So I do not find any reason to discharge the caveat by making an order under R. 27 of Ch. 35 of the Original Side Rules. ( 19 ) I think it is my duty to put on record that a copy of a single bench decision of this court in the goods of Nanda Lai Sett, AIR 1955 Cal 88 was given to me by counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing on a previous occasion. In that case provisions in rr. 28 and 30 were not considered. I have found therefrom that an issue regarding the caveator's interest is to be decided on an order under R. 30, and not in an application under R. 25. In that case provisions in rr. 28 and 30 were not considered. I have found therefrom that an issue regarding the caveator's interest is to be decided on an order under R. 30, and not in an application under R. 25. ( 20 ) FOR these reasons this application is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs in it. ( 21 ) 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. Application dismissed.