Bombay HC Issues Practice Note Barring Registry from Entertaining Caveats After Probate Order
Justice Abhay Ahuja directed that once an officer orders issuance of a probate grant, the Registry must not entertain any Caveat or cross Petition unless specifically directed by the Court.
The Bombay High Court, exercising its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, has issued a set of binding general directions governing how the Registry must handle probate grants once an officer has passed an order directing their issuance. Justice Abhay Ahuja, sitting singly, passed the directions on 11 August 2026 in an interim application that arose after the Registry entertained a Caveat filed after a probate order had already been granted — and then converted the disposed petition into a suit, leaving the applicant without a grant for nearly a year. The directions have been designated as a Practice Note applicable across all testamentary matters before the court.
The Dispute Over the Will of Mohammedali Abdullah Sabuwala
Gulamohamed Roshali Lakhani and others had filed Testamentary Petition No. 1314 of 2021 seeking probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased, Mohammedali Abdullah Sabuwala, dated 4 December 2013, registered as Will No. 528 of 2021.
On 30 September 2024, the Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master allowed the petition and directed the office to issue probate — but with a rider that the office first verify whether any cross petition or caveat had been filed. That rider proved consequential. Instead of issuing the grant, the Registry accepted a Caveat dated 7 October 2024 and an Affidavit in support dated 15 October 2024 filed by one Mohd. Amin M. Shafi Qureshi. The already-disposed petition was then converted into a suit, and no probate grant was issued.
Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rahul Soman, submitted that the entire bequest under the Will was to a charity and that the Caveator had no connection to the testator's property. He argued that the undue delay created by non-issuance of the grant after the September 2024 order was exploited by the Caveator, and that the Registry's acceptance of the Caveat without objection was itself surprising.
The Structural Problem: The “Verify Whether Any Caveat Is Filed” Rider
Justice Ahuja identified a systemic issue in the way the Testamentary department had been functioning. In virtually all uncontested matters, when officers directed issuance of a grant after hearing the petitioner and confirming compliance with High Court rules, they were appending a standard rider — that the grant be issued “after verifying whether any cross Petition or Caveat is filed.”
The court found this rider unnecessary and, in practice, harmful. By the time an officer directs issuance of a grant in an uncontested matter, the verification of competing claims is already supposed to have been completed. Deferring that exercise to the post-order stage creates an opening for interested parties to file caveats that effectively nullify an order already passed. That is precisely what happened in this case: a caveat filed after the order directing grant of probate was treated as sufficient reason not to issue the grant and to reopen the matter as a suit.
The court noted that if a concerned officer is not confident that competing claims have been addressed, the correct course is not to issue the grant at all and to refer the matter to the court — not to pass a conditional order and leave the door open for subsequent caveats to obstruct it.
Directions Issued as a Practice Note
Acting on this reasoning, Justice Ahuja issued the following general directions, to operate prospectively across all testamentary matters under the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court:
Henceforth, orders directing issuance of a grant must not include any rider requiring post-order verification of caveats or cross petitions. That verification is an exercise to be completed before the direction is given, not after. If an officer cannot satisfy himself on this point, the matter must be referred to the court.
The date of the grant, when issued pursuant to such an order, shall be the date of the order directing issuance — not the date on which the grant is physically issued.
All grants must be issued within two weeks from the date of the order directing issuance.
The Registry shall not entertain any caveats or cross petitions after an order directing issuance of the grant has been passed, unless the court specifically directs otherwise.
Circulation and Status of the Directions
Justice Ahuja directed that these general directions be circulated expeditiously to all concerned officers, to courts taking up testamentary matters, and be published on the Bombay High Court website. The directions are also to be included in notices issued by the Bar Associations attached to the Principal Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The court expressly designated the directions as a Practice Note under the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction of the court. The Prothonotary & Senior Master was directed to act accordingly.
The application before the court — which also seeks specific relief including rejection of the Caveat dated 7 October 2024 and a direction to the Prothonotary & Senior Master to issue the probate pursuant to the 30 September 2024 order — was not finally disposed of on 11 August 2026. The court deferred hearing on the specific reliefs because the advocate on record for the Caveator, Mr. Waquar Ahmad, was absent, and only a holding counsel appeared to seek time.
Outcome
The court listed the interim application for final hearing on the specific prayers on 18 August 2026 on the supplementary board. The court made clear that if the Caveator's advocate does not appear on that date, it will proceed to hear the application and pass appropriate orders without further opportunity.
The general directions and Practice Note take immediate effect and are not contingent on the outcome of the specific reliefs sought in the interim application.