JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The applicant Smt. Jharna Das has filed the instant application for revocation of a grant of Probate dated 22nd April, 2021 in PLA No. 358 of 2019 to the estate of the deceased Ashesh Kumar Dhar, who died on 13th April, 2018. 2. After the death of Ashesh Kumar Dhar, the respondent had filed an application before this Court being PLA No. 358 of 2019 for grant of Probate to the estate of the deceased Ashesh Kumar Dhar in terms of his last Will and Testament dated 27th March, 2015. This Court by an order dated 12th March, 2021 has allowed the prayer for grant of Probate and on 22nd April, 2021 has issued Probate to the respondent. 3. Now, the applicant has filed the present application for revocation of the Probate. The applicant says that the deceased Ashesh Kumar Dhar during his life time had executed a Will on 10th December, 2015 which is a registered Will and in the said Will, the testator has appointed the applicant as executrix and his wife as beneficiary of his last Will and Testament. The applicant says that the respondent being the brother of the deceased with the oblique motive and in the absence of the wife of the deceased by undue influence and fraudulently obtained an unregistered Will in his favour along with his son though the Will of the applicant is the last Will and Testament. 4. The applicant says that when the deceased came to know about the alleged act of the respondent and his nephew, namely, Ankit Dhar, immediately, the deceased has executed a Will by appointing the applicant as executrix and his wife as beneficiary of his last Will and the said Will got registered. The wife of the deceased came to know about the application filed by the respondent being PLA No. 358 of 2019, sometimes in the last week of December, 2020 from the Special Citation issued in the said proceeding but due to her old age and pandemic Covid-19, the wife of the deceased could not take steps by filing caveat. The wife of the deceased came to know on 20th April, 2022 that this Court has passed an order for Grant of Probate in favour of the respondent on 12th March, 2021. 5. The wife of the deceased came to know on 20th April, 2022 that this Court has passed an order for Grant of Probate in favour of the respondent on 12th March, 2021. 5. The applicant submits that the Will executed by the testator in favour of the applicant in which the wife of the testator is beneficiary of the last Will and Testament and the applicant being the executrix has already filed an application for Grant of Probate of the said Will and prayed for revocation of the probate granted by this Court in favour of the respondent. He submits that the case of the applicant is covered under Clause (d) and Clause (vi) of the illustration of Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925. 6. The applicant has relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 2618 (In the Goods of: Sisir Kumar Mitra) and submitted that discovery of the later Will after grant is obtained is good ground for revocation of the probate. 7. He has relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (5) CTC 117 (E. Sankaran –vs- Krishnaveni and Another) and submitted that the petitioner is having substantial interest in the estate is losing her right to prove the alleged Will relied by the respondent is not genuine and is a fictitious one. 8. The applicant relied upon the judgment reported in (1990) 3 SCC 333 (Elizabeth Anthony –vs-Michel Charles John Chown Lengera) and submitted that slight and even a bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat in a probate proceeding. 9. The respondent says that the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable as the applicant does not have any right and interest in the estate of the deceased. He submits that the applicant has not demonstrated any of the grounds for revoking the probate as available under Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925. He submits that the applicant failed to make out any case of “just cause”. 10. The respondent says that the testator, Ashesh Kumar Dhar during his life time was a Hindu and was guided and governed under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. The deceased died on 13th April, 2018, leaving behind his wife Smt. Hena Dhar as his sole legal heir. 10. The respondent says that the testator, Ashesh Kumar Dhar during his life time was a Hindu and was guided and governed under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. The deceased died on 13th April, 2018, leaving behind his wife Smt. Hena Dhar as his sole legal heir. He says that the deceased during his life time had executed a Will dated 27th March, 2015 wherein the testator has appointed the respondent as one of the executor along with one Ankit Dhar. In the said Will, it is mentioned that the wife of the deceased will have the right to stay in the dwelling house during her lifetime and will be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 5000/-per month for the day to day expenses from the business to be operated under the name and style of Dhar Brothers. 11. He submits that after the death of the testator, the respondent has filed an application for grant of probate being PLA No. 358 of 2019 and a Special Citation was issued to the wife of the testator which was duly served upon her but no caveat was lodged and accordingly, this Court has granted probate to the respondent as propounder. He submits that after Grant of Probate, the respondent in terms of the last Will and Testament of the deceased paying the amount of Rs.5000/-to the wife of the deceased regularly till date and the widow is acknowledging the said amount without any objection. 12. He submits that the sole legal heir of the testator has acted upon the Probate granted by this Court by receiving an amount of Rs.5,000/-per month without any objection. He submits that the wife of the testator has not filed any application for revocation of Probate but the applicant has filed the present application, though the applicant is not having any slightest interest in the estate of the deceased. The alleged Will on the basis of which the applicant has filed the present application, in the alleged Will, the applicant is only alleged to be executor and not the beneficiary. 13. The respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 35 (Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah –vs-Mrs. The alleged Will on the basis of which the applicant has filed the present application, in the alleged Will, the applicant is only alleged to be executor and not the beneficiary. 13. The respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 35 (Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah –vs-Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose and Others) and submitted that Section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 clearly creates a bar to the establishment of any right under Will by an executor or a legatee unless Probate or Letters of Administration of the Will have been obtained. 14. He relied upon the judgment reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 62 (Surinder Kumar and Another –vs-Gian Chand and Others) and submitted that the respondent has obtained Probate from this Court in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the law and the judgment obtained by the respondent is in rem. 15. The respondent relied upon the judgment reported in 24 CWN 541 (Radhashyam Dass and Another –vs-Ranga Sundari) and submitted that the widow of the Testator is receiving the benefits from the respondent in terms of the last Will and Testament of the deceased without any objection and has not filed any Caveat inspite of receipt of Special Citation and thus there in no ground to reopen the proceeding. 16. Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925 provides Revocation or annulment for just cause, which reads as follows : “263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. — The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation. — Just cause shall be deemed to exist where— (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect. Illustrations (i) The Court by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction. (ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited. (iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked. (iv) A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B, as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was never married to him. (v) A has taken administration to the estate of B as if he had died intestate, but a will has since been discovered. (vi) Since probate was granted, a latter Will has been discovered. (vii) Since probate was granted, a codicil has been discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment of executors under the Will. (viii) The person to whom probate was, or letters of administration were, granted has subsequently become of unsound mind.” 17. The main contention of the applicant that the deceased testator had executed a Will on 10th December, 2015 by appointing the applicant as executrix of the said Will and the testator has appointed his wife Smt. Hena Dhar as sole beneficiary of the said Will. The respondent after the death of the deceased testator had filed an application being PLA No. 358 of 2019 for grant of Probate with respect to the Will executed by the testator dated 27th March, 2015 wherein the testator has appointed the respondent and one Sri Ankit Dhar as joint executors of the said Will. The applicant has admitted that a Special Citation with respect to PLA No. 358 of 2019 was served upon the wife of the deceased, Smt. Hena Dhar but after receipt of the Special Citation, the wife of the deceased has not filed any caveat or affidavit in support of caveat. 18. The Will on the basis of which the applicant has filed the present application, in the said Will, the wife of the testator is the sole beneficiary and the applicant is only an executor of the said Will but the wife of the testator has not come forward for claiming the property of the deceased in terms of the Will dated 10th December, 2015 which the applicant has relied upon. It is also not disputed that the Will dated 27th March, 2015 on the basis of which the respondent has obtained probate, in the said Will also it is mentioned as follows : “My family consisting of myself and my wife SMT. HENA DHAR. We have got no issue. i) presently I have the following immoveable and malafides joint owner of the dwelling house at 60/A/25, Haran Banerjee Lane, Konnagar, Hooghly and adjoining land being No. 60/B/28, Haran Banerjee Lane, Konnagar, Hooghly. I have one-third in the said properties. ii) one of the partner in the Business DHAR BROTHERS running at the rented shop-room at No. 154. Rajakatra, Ground Floor. premises No. 167, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 007. I have one-third share in the said business. It is my wish and desire that after my demise, my Wife HENA DHAR will have the only right to stay in the dwelling house until her to save the properties death but she will have no right to sell or transfer my properties to her relative or outsider in any circumstances. She will be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 5,000/-per month, necessary for her day to day expenses from the business, to be operated by executor of this WILL. I hereby leave, give, devise and bequeath absolutely and for ever to my brother ALOKE KUMAR DHAR and ANKIT DHAR their heirs, executors and administrators all my right, title and interest in the tenancy shop-room and aforesaid properties. iii) I hereby appoint SHRI ANKIT DHAR and ALOKE KUMAR DHAR both residing No. 31/1, B. T. Road, Ghoshpara, Kolkata -700 050 executor's of this my WILL, who will be entitled to obtain probate singly or jointly without being required to furnish any Security.” 19. In affidavit in opposition, the respondent has categorically stated that after grant of Probate in terms of the last Will of the testator in terms of the Will dated 27th March, 2015, the respondent is paying the amount of Rs. 5,000/-to Smt. Hena Dhar, the wife of the deceased and she is receiving the said amount continuously. In support of the said statement, the respondent has disclosed the bank passbook which established that the respondent is paying the said amount to the wife of the deceased. 20. The Court while entertaining an application for revocation of grant of Probate or Letters of Administration finds that there exists “just cause”. In support of the said statement, the respondent has disclosed the bank passbook which established that the respondent is paying the said amount to the wife of the deceased. 20. The Court while entertaining an application for revocation of grant of Probate or Letters of Administration finds that there exists “just cause”. Then again existence of “just cause” will not suffice, still the Court has discretion regarding, what is the “just cause” and under what circumstances, the Court may exercise discretion is not exhaustively provided in Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Existence of “just cause” is exemplified and/or illustrated in exhaustively in the said Section. This Court finds that the revocation of grant of Probate can be made when it is found that it was done without citing the parties who have not been cited. It is now well settled by the civil judicial pronouncement that non-service of Citation upon the person who ought to have been cited is also one of the ground for revocation of grant of Probate. 21. In a full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1955 SC 566 in paragraph 16, it has been observed that Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 vests a judicial discretion in the Court to revoke or annul grant for just cause. The explanation has indicated circumstances under which the Court can come to the conclusion that the “just cause” has been made out. 22. In the present case, the specific case made out by the applicant that the Will which the applicant has relied upon is the last Will and Testament and is a registered Will. The applicant has relied upon Clause (d) of Section 263 and Clause (vi) of the illustration of the said Section. Clause (d) reads that “the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances” : Clause (vi) reads that “since probate was granted, a later Will has been discovered.” Clause (d) of Section 263 of the Act of 1925 is not applicable in the present case as the applicant has not obtained Probate of the Will dated 10th December, 2015. The applicant has only filed an application for grant of probate which is pending for adjudication. The applicant has only filed an application for grant of probate which is pending for adjudication. Clause (vi) of the illustration of Section 263 is also not applicable in the present case as it is not the case made out by the applicant that the applicant has discovered the Will dated 10th December, 2015 subsequent to the grant of Probate of the Will dated 27th March, 2015. 23. In the application, the applicant has admitted that the wife of the deceased Testator has received Special Citation of PLA No. 358 of 2019 but the wife of the deceased has not filed any caveat. It is also admitted that the wife of the deceased has acted upon the Probate granted by this Court in favour of the respondent in terms of the Will dated 27th March, 2015 by accepting Rs. 5,000/- per month from the respondent till date. 24. Considering the above facts, this Court finds that the applicant has admitted in her application with regard to the existence of the Will dated 27th March, 2015 and also admitted that the wife of the deceased had received Special Citation of PLA No. 358 of 2019 before grant of Probate by this Court. The applicant failed to establish her caveatable interest justifying for revocation of the Probate granted to the respondent in terms of the Will dated 27th March, 2015. 25. In view of the above, GA No. 1 of 2022 in PLA No. 358 of 2019 is dismissed.