Service of citation for Letters of Administration *De-Bonis-Non* may be dispensed with where heirs consented to the original probate.

Narsingrao Pupala executed a Will in 1974.

After his death, his wife Sudhabai and another executor sought probate (Petition 11/1976).

Nandkumar ("Nandu") initially filed a caveat but later withdrew it and filed a letter of consent.

Probate was granted to Sudhabai in 1984.

Sudhabai died in 2006 before fully administering the estate.

Consequently, Pratap (Respondent) filed Petition 445/2008 for Letters of Administration *De-Bonis-Non* under Section 258 of the Indian Succession Act.

On 21st August 2009, the Court dispensed with the service of citation upon next-of-kin because they had consented to the original probate.

Nandu filed Miscellaneous Petition 18/2018 in 2017—nearly nine years later—seeking to revoke the grant, alleging the Will was forged and citations were mandatory.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition on grounds of delay and merits.

Whether the service of citation is mandatory under Section 259 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in an application for Letters of Administration *De-Bonis-Non*.

Whether the Miscellaneous Petition for revocation was barred by undue delay and laches.

The Court applied Section 258 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding the appointment of a new representative when an executor dies leaving an estate unadministered.

It interpreted Section 259, which dictates that in granting such effects, the Court shall be "guided" by the same rules as original grants.

The Court also referenced Rule 397 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which requires notice to next-of-kin for probate/administration applications unless consent is filed.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished *Pooja Deepak Patil v. Savita Vasant Rao Patil* (2018) regarding the mandatory nature of citations in original grants.

The Court reasoned that an application under Sections 258 and 259 is distinct from an original grant because a valid Probate already exists.

Since all objections from next-of-kin are typically resolved during the original probate proceedings—and Nandu had specifically withdrawn his caveat and consented in 1976—the requirement for fresh citations is not absolute.

The word "guided" in Section 259 provides the Court discretion to dispense with citations if the circumstances (such as prior consent) warrant it.

Regarding delay, the Court rejected Nandu’s claims of "harassment" and "lack of knowledge."

It noted that Pratap had issued public notices in 1910, registered transfer deeds, and modified ongoing suit entries, making it nearly impossible for Nandu to have remained ignorant of the grant for nine years.

On the second issue, it held the petition was heavily barred by delay.

The Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge’s order dated 19th August 2019 and the order dated 21st August 2009.

Although the Court found the appeal frivolous, it refrained from imposing costs.