JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—An application under Section 151 Civil Prodecure Code (Paper 8-A) is up for consideration. By means of this application the petitioners have prayed for discharge of caveat filed in the instant Testamentary Case. 2. The Testamentary Case under Section 278/237 of the Indian Succession Act read with Chapter XXX Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court was filed seeking Letters of Administration to the estate of late Vatan Lal Chaurasiya with the will dated 4.12.2008 annexed thereto. 3. It appears that on the receipt of notice a caveat was filed on 28.8.2014. This caveat is supported by an affidavit. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi that Rule 36 of Chapter XXX of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provides that where a caveat is entered after an application has been made for grant of probate or letters of administration, an objection supported by affidavit shall be filed within fourteen days of the caveat being lodged. 5. The aforesaid Rule 36 also provides that such objection shall state the right or interest of the caveator and the ground of objection to the application for grant of probate or letters of administration. He submits that this objection which was necessarily required to be filed within a period of fourteen days has not been filed till date. Therefore, in view of Rule 38 the caveat is liable to be discharged. 6. Rule 38 provides the consequence of non compliance of the provisions of Rule 36. It is submitted that since the caveator had followed the procedure prescribed for lodging a caveat, this procedure should have been complied in its entirety and in the absence of completer compliance of Rule 36, the consequences enumerated in Rule 38 would necessarily ensue. 7. Sri Pratik J. Nagar learned counsel for the caveator has submitted that a caveat was lodged to oppose grant of letters of administration with the copy of the will attached. This caveat is supported by an affidavit stating therein the right and interest of the caveator and the ground of objection to the application. 7. Sri Pratik J. Nagar learned counsel for the caveator has submitted that a caveat was lodged to oppose grant of letters of administration with the copy of the will attached. This caveat is supported by an affidavit stating therein the right and interest of the caveator and the ground of objection to the application. He further submits that in the affidavit the caveators have set up another will executed by Vatan Lal, in their favour and are on its basis contesting the grant of letters of administration in favour of Rupesh Kumar Kesarwani, also on the ground that he is a stranger to the family. He further submits that, in case as alleged, an objection had been filed, the same upon conversion of the testamentary case into a suit, was liable to be treated as the written statement. Since the testamentary case has not been converted into a suit till date, no written statement is required to be filed. He therefore, submits that the application is liable to be dismissed. 8. The point requiring consideration therefore is, whether the caveat that has been lodged in the instant case is liable to be discharged since the caveators have not filed an objection stating the right and interest of the caveator and the ground of objection to the application for grant of letters of administration as required under Rule 36. 9. The relevant Rule 36 and Rule 38 which provides consequence of non compliance of Rule 36 are both quoted herein below : 36. “Affidavit in support of caveat : 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, an objection supported by affidavit shall be filed within fourteen days of the caveat being lodged. Such objection shall state the right and interest of the caveator and the ground of objection to the application.” 38. “Consequence of non-compliance : Where the caveator fails to file any objection in compliance with Rule 36 or in compliance with the notice issued under Rule 37, the caveat may be discharged by an order to be obtained on application to the Court.” 10. It is also relevant to note that Rule 35 provides for filing of a caveat in the prescribed form. It is also relevant to note that Rule 35 provides for filing of a caveat in the prescribed form. The form of the caveat is to be found in the Vth Schedule of the Indian Succession Act 1925 as provided by Section 284 (4) of the Act. 11. Upon a bare reading of Section 284 as also the Vth Schedule thereto, it is clear that the caveat to be lodged, is not required to be accompanied by an affidavit. 12. Rule 36 provides that the objection to be filed within fourteen days of the caveat being lodged, must be accompanied by an affidavit and the objection should state right and interest of the caveat or the ground of objections. 13. Although in the instant case the aforesaid objection has not been filed, yet there is substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the caveator that the caveat is accompanied by an affidavit which does state the right and interest of the caveators and their ground of objection to the application namely that the will is forged and that the testator had a limited interest in the property that had been bequeathed. 14. I therefore, find that there is substantial compliance of Rule 36. 15. Even otherwise, Rule 38 provides that where the caveator fails to file an objection in compliance with Rule 36 or Rule 37 (not relevant in the instant case) the caveat may be discharged by the Court. It is therefore, clear that the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge the caveat upon non compliance of Rule 36. The use of the word ‘may’ necessarily indicates that filing of objection is not mandatory. In case, the intention was that filing of such an objection was mandatory, the word used would have been ‘shall’ rather than ‘may’. 16. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Rule 39 provides that upon an affidavit in support of the caveat being filed, the proceedings shall be numbered as a suit and the objection that has been filed by the caveator shall be treated as his written statement and thereafter the matter shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the ‘Code’. The word Code has been defined in Chapter I Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of the Court, to mean the Civil Procedure Code 1908. 17. The word Code has been defined in Chapter I Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of the Court, to mean the Civil Procedure Code 1908. 17. In the instant case an affidavit has been filed alongwith the caveat and therefore, in view of Rule 39 the Court has no option but to convert the testamentary case into a suit. No orders in this regard have been passed till date. 18. Once a suit is registered the defendant therein can always be granted time for filing his written statement. In such view of the matter it appears from a conjoint reading of Rule 36 and Rule 39 that the provisions for filing of an objection, which, upon the case being registered as a suit is to be treated as written statement has been provided for the sake of convenience. Besides, this objection, which is ultimately to be treated as a written statement upon the matter being registered as a suit, has to be supported by an affidavit. 19. In the instant case the affidavit is available on record having being filed alongwith the caveat, which clearly sets out the right and interest of the caveators and their ground of objection. Therefore, in my considered opinion the mistake, if any, on the part of the caveators is more of form, rather than in substance. Under the circumstances, therefore, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge of the caveat is liable to be dismissed. 20. Even otherwise, since as already noticed herein above, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 36 because the affidavit filed in support of the caveat clearly spells out the caveators right and interest and their objection to the will, on the basis whereof, letters of administration have been sought, the instant application of the petitioners is dismissed. Since a caveat duly supported by an affidavit has been filed, the instant testamentary case is converted into a suit. 21. Office is directed to register the same as such. 22. The caveators are granted three weeks time to file their objection/written statement.