ORDER : 1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking revocation of letters of administration issued on 19.07.2019 in favour of the respondent (original petitioner in Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019). 2. The petitioners herein alleged that the respondent fraudulently obtained the letters of administration pertaining to the estate of the deceased. By an interim application filed in the present petition, the petitioners have also sought interim reliefs. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the brother of the deceased Archana Chandresh Thakkar, petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 4. The respondent is the married daughter of the deceased. It is stated that the respondent applied for grant of letters of administration, suppressing Will dated 17.10.2020 executed by the deceased. According to the petitioners, in terms of the said Will, they are entitled to part of the estate of the deceased, of which they stand deprived due to the fraudulent act of the respondent in obtaining the letters of administration from this Court without divulging all relevant information, including existence of the aforesaid Will dated 17.10.2020. The said allegations are denied by the respondent. Reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are filed in the interim application seeking interim reliefs and the learned counsel for the parties rely upon the statements made in such affidavits to support their respective contentions. 5. The chronology of events leading to filing of the present petition is that, on 24.01.2019, the deceased Archana Chandresh Thakkar passed away. It is the case of the petitioners, as stated in the interim application, that after the death of the deceased on 24.01.2019, when the respondent and her husband visited the residence of the petitioners on 31.01.2019, they were informed by the petitioners about the aforesaid Will dated 17.10.2020 executed by the deceased. It is also claimed in the interim application that during the said visit, photocopy of the said Will was handed over to the respondent and her husband. This assertion is specifically denied in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. 6. On 06.02.2019, the respondent filed Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019 for grant of letters of administration pertaining to the estate of the deceased. In the said petition, the respondent asserted that the deceased died intestate and that despite diligent search, no Will could be found. 6. On 06.02.2019, the respondent filed Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019 for grant of letters of administration pertaining to the estate of the deceased. In the said petition, the respondent asserted that the deceased died intestate and that despite diligent search, no Will could be found. It was also asserted that no application for grant of probate of the Will or for the grant of letters of administration with or without Will was filed in any Court. The details of the surviving legal heirs of the deceased i.e. the respondent being the daughter and the husband of the deceased were stated in the said petition. 7. On 28.05.2019, final order for issuance of letters of administration was passed in the said testamentary petition. On 09.07.2019, the grant was issued. 8. On 20.01.2020, petitioner No. 1 sent an e-mail to the respondent stating that a year had passed since the death of the deceased and that the proposed visit of the respondent was awaited. It was asserted that during the last visit of the said respondent in January, 2019, matters were not expedited and that being the executors, the petitioners were in discussion with their advocates. It was further stated that the petitioners would be assigning the matter for necessary legal process unless the respondent visited India and expedited the same at the earliest. On 26.01.2020, the respondent sent an e-mail to petitioner No. 1 (her maternal uncle), stating that as she had mentioned about a year ago, she was disputing the Will propounded by petitioner No. 1. It was claimed that the deceased had confirmed multiple times that she had never executed any Will. It was specifically stated thereafter that the respondent had already taken appropriate legal remedies in respect of the estate of the deceased and a request was made to petitioner No. 1 that no further discussions may be undertaken regarding the same as it was leading to further mental stress and causing strained relations between the parties. 9. Thereafter, on 18.12.2020, the petitioners filed probate petition before this Court, which was numbered on 27.08.2021 as Testamentary Petition No. 2277 of 2021. Subsequently, on 17.12.2021, the present petition for revocation of the grant of letters of administration was filed along with the interim application. On 11.01.2022, when the petition along with the interim application was listed before this Court, time was granted to complete the pleadings. Subsequently, on 17.12.2021, the present petition for revocation of the grant of letters of administration was filed along with the interim application. On 11.01.2022, when the petition along with the interim application was listed before this Court, time was granted to complete the pleadings. On 19.01.2023, citation was served in the aforesaid probate petition bearing Testamentary Petition No. 2277 of 2021. On 31.01.2023, the respondent along with her father filed caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat in the aforesaid probate petition i.e. Testamentary Petition No. 2277 of 2021. The said probate petition is pending consideration of this Court. 10. The pleadings were completed in the interim application and today, the petition along with the interim application were taken up for hearing. 11. Ms. Kotak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to the documents placed on record along with the miscellaneous petition and the interim application. She specifically relied upon the aforementioned exchange of e-mails dated 20.01.2020 and 26.01.2020. By relying upon the assertions made in the interim application, it was submitted that photocopy of the Will dated 17.10.2020 was given to the respondent and her husband on 31.01.2019. It was submitted that when the respondent was aware of the existence of the aforesaid Will and she had a copy thereof, a duty was cast upon her to disclose the same in the petition filed for grant of letters of administration so that the said petition would have proceeded in accordance with law. The aforesaid crucial facts were suppressed from this Court, showing that the respondents had committed fraud upon this Court and false assertions were made, thereby indicating that the ground available under Section 263(b) of the Indian Succession Act was available for the petitioners to approach this Court in the present proceedings. 12. By referring to the stand taken in the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that after obtaining such grant of letters of administration by playing fraud on this Court, the respondent had further transferred the interest in the estate of the deceased, in favour of her father and husband. It was submitted that, therefore, the present petition deserved to be allowed, by recalling the grant of letters of administration. It was further submitted that consequential directions ought to be issued for annulling the transfer deeds executed by the respondent. It was submitted that, therefore, the present petition deserved to be allowed, by recalling the grant of letters of administration. It was further submitted that consequential directions ought to be issued for annulling the transfer deeds executed by the respondent. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 69 of 2012 (Peter John D'Souza and Others vs. Armstrong Joseph D'Souza). 13. On the other hand, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners had failed to make out any ground under the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the letters of administration granted in favour of the respondent. It was submitted that the chronology of events in the present case would show that the respondent herein was not obliged under law to have stated in the petition filed for grant of letters of administration anything in respect of the alleged Will dated 17.10.2020. It was submitted that the statements made in paragraphs 3 and 8 of the aforesaid petition for grant of letters of administration were absolutely true. There was no obligation upon the respondents to have mentioned the Will sought to be propounded on behalf of the petitioners herein. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the petitioners did not take any steps with alacrity in approaching this Court for seeking probate of the alleged Will. It was specifically submitted that the exchange of e-mails of January, 2020, merely indicated that the Will was sought to be propounded by the petitioners. There is no material on record to show that the respondent, at any point in time had conceded about the existence of such a Will. It was further submitted that the respondent had immediately moved in February, 2019 for grant of letters of administration and the grant was actually issued, as far back as on 09.07.2019. Even after the e-mail dated 26.01.2020, whereby the respondent had informed the petitioners about the steps taken with regard to the estate of the deceased, it took almost one year for the petitioners to file the probate petition in December, 2020. Even after the e-mail dated 26.01.2020, whereby the respondent had informed the petitioners about the steps taken with regard to the estate of the deceased, it took almost one year for the petitioners to file the probate petition in December, 2020. It was further submitted that the present revocation petition was filed one year thereafter in December, 2021, by which time, the respondent had already administered the estate of the deceased and executed transfer deeds in favour of her father and husband. On this basis, it was submitted that it was too late in the day for the petitioners to claim revocation of the grant issued in favour of the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent was never served with a copy of the Will and she continues to dispute the very existence of the Will, which is evident from the caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat filed in the probate petition. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, submitted that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others (supra) do not apply and that the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Peter John D'Souza and Others vs. Armstrong Joseph D'Souza (supra) can be distinguished on facts. It was submitted that in the said case, there was no dispute about the fact that the deceased therein had left a Will. 15. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Perviz Sarosh Batliwalla vs. Viloo Plumber and Another, 1999 SCC Online Bom. 816, Archana Arun Palav vs. Jennifer Michael and Others, 2013 SCC Online Bom. 1134 and Prakash P. Bambardekar vs. Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar, 2013 Online Bom. 748. On this basis, it was submitted that the present petition deserved to be dismissed. 16. This Court has perused the material available on record, in the backdrop of the rival contentions. The thrust of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is upon the alleged fraud committed by the respondent by suppressing the existence of the Will dated 17.10.2020, despite the fact that the existence of the said Will was well within the knowledge of the respondent when she filed the petition for grant of letters of administration. The thrust of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is upon the alleged fraud committed by the respondent by suppressing the existence of the Will dated 17.10.2020, despite the fact that the existence of the said Will was well within the knowledge of the respondent when she filed the petition for grant of letters of administration. If the allegation levelled on behalf of the petitioners against the respondent is found to be sustainable, the grant will have to be revoked. 17. In order to examine the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is necessary to deal with the documents placed on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that the respondent has all along disputed the very existence of the said Will dated 17.10.2020. At no point in time, did the respondent concede to existence of such Will. In the reply affidavit filed in the interim application, the respondent has stoutly denied the alleged meeting between the parties on 31.01.2019 and she has also denied having received copy of the said Will dated 17.10.2020 on the said date. 18. Since the petitioners heavily relied upon the e-mails exchanged between the parties in January, 2020, this Court has perused the same. It is found that in the e-mail dated 20.01.2020, petitioner No. 1 called upon the respondent to expedite the matter and in case she failed to do so, petitioner No. 1 would be required to initiate necessary legal process. This is an e-mail sent more than a year after the death of the deceased and there is no reference to either the Will or the proposed legal process to be initiated by petitioner No. 1. 19. In the response e-mail dated 26.01.2020, the respondent did refer to the Will and she said that she disputed the said Will as had been mentioned a year ago. It was asserted that the deceased had confirmed with the respondent multiple times that she had never executed any Will. Significantly, the respondent specifically informed petitioner No. 1 that she had already taken appropriate remedies in respect of the estate of the deceased and that, she did not want any further discussions or communications in that regard. 20. Despite the aforesaid exchange of e-mails between the parties in January 2020, the petitioners chose not to take any precipitative steps in the matter. 20. Despite the aforesaid exchange of e-mails between the parties in January 2020, the petitioners chose not to take any precipitative steps in the matter. It was almost after a year that on 18.12.2020, the petitioners chose to file the probate petition (Testamentary Petition No. 2277 of 2021) in this Court. The probate petition was eventually numbered on 27.08.2021. Thereafter on 17.10.2021, the petitioners filed the present miscellaneous petition for revocation of the grant issued in favour of the respondent. 21. It is evident from the aforesaid chronology of events that the petitioners did not take any steps with alacrity in respect of the Will dated 17.10.2020. The present petition seeking revocation of grant was filed more than 2½ years after the grant was issued. It is relevant that in the interregnum, the respondent acted upon the grant and administered the estate by executing transfer deeds in favour of her father and husband. In other words, the grant has already taken effect. 22. On the question as to whether the respondent made false statements in her petition for grant of letters of administration and that, she committed a fraud on this Court, the contents of the petition filed on her behalf assume significance. 23. In paragraphs 3 and 8 of Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019, the respondent stated as follows: “3. That the said Deceased died intestate and that due and diligent search has been made for a will but none has been found. 8. That no application is made to any District Court or District Delegate or any other High Court for Probate of any Will of the said Deceased or for Letters of Administration with or without the Will annexed to her property and credits.” 24. This Court finds that the assertion of the respondent that the deceased died intestate in the above-quoted paragraph 3 is a statement made on her behalf on her true belief that the deceased did die intestate. The further statement that despite diligent search, no Will was found can also not be said to be a false statement on her part. In any case, the statement in paragraph 8 that no application had been filed in any Court for grant of probate of the said Will is certainly a statement of fact and a truthful statement. The further statement that despite diligent search, no Will was found can also not be said to be a false statement on her part. In any case, the statement in paragraph 8 that no application had been filed in any Court for grant of probate of the said Will is certainly a statement of fact and a truthful statement. It is an admitted position that the probate petition was filed on 18.12.2020, about 1½ years after the grant was actually issued in favour of the respondent and almost 2 years after the petition for grant of letters of administration was filed by the respondent. 25. This fact assumes significance and the failure on the part of the petitioners to move the Court for grant of probate of the said Will, is a factor that goes against them. The distinction made on behalf of the respondent from the facts of the case in Peter John D'Souza and Others vs. Armstrong Joseph D'Souza (supra) is found to be correct, for the reason that in the said case, there was no dispute raised in respect of the subject Will. The aforesaid fact completely changes the complexion of the present case and indicates that the petitioners cannot rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Peter John D'Souza and Others vs. Armstrong Joseph D'Souza (supra). As regards the judgment in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others (supra), there can be no quarrel with the proposition that there is a duty cast upon the party, who approaches the Court, to come forward with a true case to prove it by true evidence. 26. In the present case, considering the material brought to the notice of this Court, it cannot be said that the respondent did not come with a true case before this Court. This is particularly so in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Prakash P. Bambardekar vs. Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar (supra). In similar circumstances, this Court found that the party, who was propounding a Will, had taken no steps to have probate of the alleged Will and such a party could not be allowed to take advantage of such alleged Will to seek revocation of letters of administration already granted in favour of the rival party. 27. In similar circumstances, this Court found that the party, who was propounding a Will, had taken no steps to have probate of the alleged Will and such a party could not be allowed to take advantage of such alleged Will to seek revocation of letters of administration already granted in favour of the rival party. 27. In the case of Archana Arun Palav vs. Jennifer Michael and Others (supra), this Court held that Section 263(b) of the Indian Succession Act would not apply in such circumstances and non-disclosure of a rival claim in itself could not be a ground to seek revocation of a grant. This is particularly so when the party seeking revocation, as in the present case, failed to take any steps in respect of the Will sought to be propounded, even when the letters of administration stood granted in favour of the respondent. 28. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent questioned the very locus of the petitioners to seek revocation on the basis that the respondent and her father are the only heirs of the deceased by applying Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is submitted that the respondent has always claimed and continues to claim that the deceased died intestate. If that be so, the petitioners cannot be said to be the legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, they cannot be said to have any locus in the matter. 29. The said contention raised on behalf of the respondent has to be considered from the point in time when the petition was filed on her behalf for grant of letters of administration and crucially the petitioners herein had not undertaken any steps at all to seek probate of the alleged Will dated 17.10.2020. Viewed from this angle, it can be said that the respondent is justified in resisting the prayers made in the present petition. 30. It is significant that in the case of Prakash P. Bambardekar vs. Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar (supra), this Court also took into consideration the fact that the respondent therein, in whose favour the grant had been issued, had already transferred the flat in her name long before the revocation petition was filed. 31. 30. It is significant that in the case of Prakash P. Bambardekar vs. Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar (supra), this Court also took into consideration the fact that the respondent therein, in whose favour the grant had been issued, had already transferred the flat in her name long before the revocation petition was filed. 31. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the grant was issued in favour of the respondent as far back as on 09.07.2019 and material has been placed on record to indicate that the grant was acted upon, the respondent administered the estate of the deceased in terms of the grant and transfer deeds stood executed in favour of the father and husband of the respondent. This was prior to the petitioners taking any meaningful steps for seeking probate of the Will in question. Therefore, this is another factor against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent. 32. It is an admitted position that, as on today, the probate petition i.e. Testamentary Petition No. 2277 of 2021, is pending consideration of this Court. The respondent and her father have already filed caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat. Therefore, the petitioners would be pursuing their claim as regards the aforementioned Will in the pending probate petition. 33. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. In that light, the interim application is also dismissed. 34. It is made clear that the order passed in the present petition and interim application would not come in the way of the petitioners pursuing the aforesaid probate petition on merits, which would obviously be decided in accordance with law.