deceased which led to the Petitioner renouncing his position as executor under the will. Secondly, the address of the deceased is shown to be the same as the address of the Petitioner. Thirdly, there is a blank in regard to the date of the execution of the will in the prefatory part of the will though such a date has been subsequently filled in, in the concluding line of the will. Fourthly, one of the attesting witnesses to the will is a person by the name of Shailesh Mistry who, as the record of the proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission would show, was impleaded as the Seventh Respondent to those proceedings in his capacity as a director of the private limited company represented by the Petitioner. Fifthly, the will purports to have been presented for registration between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon on 19th January, 2000 on the very day of its execution. While Shailesh Mistry who is an attesting witness continued to be a witness at the time of registration, the other attesting witness was substituted by a person by the name of Jose Allamma who was also impleaded subsequently in the proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in her capacity as a director of the private limited company of the Petitioner.
