Adjournment order only. The officer noted the earlier amendment order dated 27.03.2023 had lapsed, that extension was denied, that the amendment lacked signature of the Officer in charge of Testamentary Department, and called for a departmental report on which order the amendment was carried out. Decides nothing of general application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Before : Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date :- 02nd July, 2024
FOR ISSUANCE OF CITATION :
1 . Perused Petition. Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the amendment in the title of the petition has been carried out in pursuance of the order dated 17.04.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Prothonotary and Senior Master. He further submitted that he moved the another praecipe dated 17.04.2024 for speaking to the minutes (dated 17.04.2024). The Hon’ble Prothonotary passed an order on 09.05.2024 and it is clarified that order dated 17.04.2024 is self explanatory and Scrutiny Office to allow the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner to remove the office objections.
02.07.2024 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the amendment to the petition can stand given lapse of the earlier amendment order and absence of required signatures.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. A. Jagdale
As recorded by the court registry
23 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
