JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J. (Oral) - I have heard Counsel for the appellant. She has pointed out that there is no opposition to the Will. I have also perused the impugned judgment dated 5.9.2006 in terms whereof the petition filed by the appellants for grant of probate was dismissed. The judgment reveals that near relations were served and respondents 2 to 6 filed a written statement/no objection on 25.5.2005 to the grant of letters of administration in respect of the Will dated 12.2.2001 executed by Ms. Morni Devi in favour of the petitioners/appellants. 2. The Trial Court dismissed the petition on two grounds, firstly, it was not verified by an attesting witness as required by Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. The Trial Court also cited an authority reported in AKK Nambiyar v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1970 SC 652 . 3. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that before dismissing her petition, appellants should have been given an opportunity to amend the petition. Counsel for the appellants has also cited an authority reported in Kulbir Singh v. State and Others, 52 (1993) DLT 57=1993 III AD (Delhi) 773, at para 20 it was held: "20. It is manifest from above that provisions of Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act are in pari materia with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15, C.P.C. An omission to verify the pleadings is not fatal to the case of a party and is curable under Section 99, C.P.C. The same principle is thus applicable to a probate case." 4. I find force in her arguments. On that count, the case stands remanded, opportunity is granted to the appellants to amend the plaint. The provisions of Section 281, Indian Succession Act be complied with. 5. The petition was also dismissed on the ground that certified copy of the Will was not produced. The Trial Court opined that in absence of the original Will probate cannot be granted. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention towards an authority delivered by this Court in Prem Prakash v. State & Others, 118 (2005) DLT 681=2005 III AD (DELHI) 441, vide para 16 a photo copy of the Will was accepted by the Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention towards an authority delivered by this Court in Prem Prakash v. State & Others, 118 (2005) DLT 681=2005 III AD (DELHI) 441, vide para 16 a photo copy of the Will was accepted by the Court. Counsel for the appellants urged that her case stands on better footing than that case because she has filed the certified copy of the Will obtained from Registrar Office. The impugned judgment reveals that Sh. Rohtash Singh, LDC from the Sub Registrar Office, PW-2 has proved the certified copy of the Will as Ex. PW2/1. Since no suspicious circumstance has been noticed by the Trial Court Judge, therefore he should have accepted the certified copy of the Will particularly, when there is no opposition about the same. It is also reported that Shri Parveen Garg, Advocate, PW-l who is one of the attesting witnesses has supported the Will. He testified that Will was signed and executed in his presence and he had drafted the same under the instructions of Ms. Morni Devi. In absence of cross-examination his statement fully proves the Will. 7. In the light of the above said discussion, I remand the case before the learned trial Judge. Counsel for the appellants states that she Will appear before the Trial Court along with the amended plaint on 23rd May, 2007. Learned Trial Court is directed to decide the case on merits till 31st July, 2007. The appeal stands disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to Trial Court forthwith and another copy be furnished dasti to appellants Counsel. Appeal disposed of.