Dundigalla Naveen Kumar, Son Of Dundigalla Rama Rao v. Dundigalla Padmavathy Alias Padmavathi Dundigalla, Wife Of Dundigalla Rama Rao (Deceased)

901-TP125-2024.DOC Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 125 OF 2024 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2024.06.13 17:43:33 +0530 DUNDIGALLA NAVEEN KUMAR, SON OF DUNDIGALLA RAMA RAO ...PETITIONER DUNDIGALLA PADMAVATHY ALIAS PADMAVATHI DUNDIGALLA, WIFE OF DUNDIGALLA RAMA RAO ...DECEASED Mr. Ajit Hodage, for the Petitioner.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED:

12th JUNE, 2024 PC:- 1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The praecipe is preferred seeking a direction to accept the Administration Bond as surety mentioned therein is not a resident of Mumbai.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad. It is, therefore, not possible for the petitioner to arrange surety from Mumbai. The petitioner has arranged a surety from Hyderabad. Attention of the Court is invited to the orders passed by this Court, especially the order dated 1st December, 2021 in TP/166/2020, whereby this Court had permitted the 1/2

901-TP125-2024.DOC petitioner therein to furnish surety, who was not a resident of Mumbai. It is noted therein that there is no mention in the Rules that the surety mentioned in the Administration Bond should be from the State of Maharashtra and/or from Mumbai.

4.

In view of the aforesaid facts and the orders passed by this Court, the objection raised by the Registry that the surety is not from Mumbai stands dispensed with. 5.

The petition be processed by permitting the petitioner to furnish a surety who is not a resident of Mumbai. 6.

Praecipe disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2