ORDER I. A. No. 3546 of 2013 The present interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants (objectors) claiming themselves to be the near relatives (NRs.) of the testator. The applicants (objectors) of the application have prayed for accepting the joint objection filed on 9.5.2013. 2. Heard Mr. Arora in support of the application and Mr. L.N. Das for the applicant. 3. This Court may first set out the relevant facts for appreciating the submissions of the parties. 4. The applicants being the near relatives (widow and daughter respectively of the testator) appeared in the present Test Case No. 7/2011 on 5.01.2012 and 23.01.2012 respectively. They filed a caveat on 23.04.2013. The same was not placed for consideration before the Court. In the meanwhile, they filed their joint objection on 9.5.2013. This was beyond the period prescribed under Rule 18 of Chapter XI, Part II of the Rules of the High Court (for short ‘the Rules’) which reads thus: – “18. Where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for a grant of probate or letters of administration with or without the Will annexed, the affidavit or affidavits in support shall be filed within eight days of the caveat being lodged, notwithstanding the long vacation. Such affidavit shall state the right and interest of the caveator, and the grounds of the objections to the application.” 5. Counsel for the applicants(objectors) has contended that in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules, the said interlocutory application is fit to be rejected as admittedly the applicants(near relatives) of the interlocutory application filed the objection much beyond the period prescribed under the said provisions of the Rules. 6. Per contra, Mr. Arora submits that the issue relating to mandatory or otherwise effect of Rules 18 has been considered by a Bench of this Court in Test Suit No.01 of 2009 (Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Kumar vs. Raj Narayan Singh @ Rajan & Ors.). This Court considered the diverse provisions of the Rules, in particular Rule 18 to 20 thereof and held that the said provision is directory in nature. It is also submitted the order rendered by this Court as reported in 1994(1) PLJR 636 (In the Goods of Late Rajo Singh, Ramautar Singh @ Ganesh Shanker) was placed before and considered by the Bench while taking the said view in the aforesaid Test Suit No.01/2009. It is also submitted the order rendered by this Court as reported in 1994(1) PLJR 636 (In the Goods of Late Rajo Singh, Ramautar Singh @ Ganesh Shanker) was placed before and considered by the Bench while taking the said view in the aforesaid Test Suit No.01/2009. Copy of the said order was handed over to Mr. Das as well as to this Court. 7. I have perused the said order wherein this Court on a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Rules found and held that rule 18 is directory in nature. The Court, in particular facts of the case, may allow the objectors to file objection even beyond the period prescribed under rule 18 of the Rules. In the said case the objection was filed 29 days after the filing of caveat. 8. This Court on appreciation of facts placed before it is not persuaded to take a different view from that taken in Test Suit No.01 of 2009. Accordingly the application (I.A. No. 3546 of 2013) is allowed. The objection filed by the applicants (NRs.) is accepted. 9. Since there is contest the present case now be converted and instituted as testamentary suit. The objection filed by the near relatives (now the defendants) shall be treated as written statements filed on their behalf. 10. Post this matter on 24.07.2013 for settlement of the issue. The parties shall utilize the time to file suggested issue(s). I.A. No. 3321 of 2013 11. Heard the parties. In view of order passed in I.A. No. 3546 of 2013 the counsel for the applicant does not press this application. It is accordingly rejected.