1. ' The above application under section 263 of the Succession Act is filed by Mst. Asma Bai for revoking the. Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner on 23rd August, 1981. In support of the application, Mr. Idris Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant, has raised a number of contentions but at the hearing of the application, the arguments were confined to only three points, namely, (i) that the Letters of Administration were granted to the petitioner in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 291 of the Succession Act inasmuch as the Letters of Administration were issued to the petitioner without taking surety alongwith bond as required under old lady is unable to administer the property for which she has-been granted Letters of Administration and as such the grant is liable to be revoked under Section 263(d) of the Succession Act; and lastly it is contended that the accounts submitted by the petitioner after the grant of the petition in her favour are substantially incorrect and are not in accordance with the rules prescribed for the filing of such accounts. It is an admitted position in the case that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased while applicant Mst. Asma Bai is one of the legal heirs being daughter of the deceased. Petition for grant of Letters of Administration was filed by Mst. Zainab Bai widow of the deceased in the year 1978 and in response to the notice issued by the Court, Mst.
2. Asma Bai, the present applicant, filed objections to the grant of the petition in favour of the petitioner. It is quite clear from the caveat filed by Mst. Asma Bai opposing the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner that one of the grounds urged at that time by the petitioner opposing the grant was that the petitioner is an infirm and old lady incapable of managing such a large estate left by her deceased father. It is not disputed before me that the caveat filed by Mst. Asma Bai was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally by the applicant though it is contended now that the application for withdrawal of the caveat was made allegedly under a mistake. Be that as it may, as a result of the withdrawal of the caveat by the applicant, the petitioner was granted Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased Mulla Mohammad All son of Abdul Hussain Kagazwala, It appears that the Letters of Administration which was granted in favour of the petitioner on condition of furnishing two sureties as required under Rule 400 of the Original Side Rules, could not be issued to her as she failed to comply the condition.
3. Later on, the, petitioner approached the Court with the application for dispensing with the surety which was granted by the Court and Letters of Administration were issued on execution of only personal bond by the petitioner. It is also an admitted position in the case that after the grant of Letters of Administration, no accounts were filed by the petitioner within six months of the issuance of Letters of Administration as required under law, whereupon the Court by order dated 27-3-1983 ordered for attachment of the property. The petitioner, thereupon filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. For discharging the attachment order as well as for extending the time for filing of the inventory and accounts in the Court. The time for filing of the accounts and inventory was extended by the Court and the accounts and, inventory filed by the petitioner were accordingly taken on record by order dated 6-11-1983. Thereafter, on 14-9-1988, the present applicant submitted an application under section 383 of the Succession Act (C.M.A. No,1082/88) praying for revocation of Letters of Administration issued in favour of the petitioner on several grounds which included the grounds; that the petitioner is an old aged lady incapable of administering the property in respect whereof she has been appointed the Administrator; that the petitioner after grant of Letters of Administration has dealt with the property in a manner which amounts to contravention of the terms and conditions of the Letters of Administration; that the property has been managed by the petitioner through persons who have been appointed as attorney by her which is not permitted by law; that the statements made by the petitioner in Court were incorrect in material aspect in respect of several properties which belonged to the deceased father of the applicant; and that the petitioner had failed to give accounts in respect of the share of the applicant eversince the grant of Letters of Administration. This application was heard by Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian, C.J. (as he then was) and was rejected by order dated 25-9-1988 with the following observations:-- "In my view the above Letters of Administration granted with the consent of the next of kin cannot be revoked on the grounds now urged by the applicant The factum that the petitioner had allegedly suppressed certain properties may be a ground for filing a suit, if competent, in accordance with law but it cannot furnish the ground of revoking the Letters of Administration as the same does not cover the suppressed properties. The other ground urged can be raised by the present applicant in the form of objection to the statement of accounts which may be filed by the petitioner."
4. The present application has been submitted by the applicant on 5-6-1989 on the grounds which I have already mentioned earlier. From the above narration of the facts, it is quite clear that the contention of the applicant that the petitioner being an old and infirm lady is incapable of managing the property, was not only raised by the present applicant at the time of the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner but this ground was also repeated in her earlier application which was dismissed by this Court on 25-9-1988. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant is not entitled to raise this ground in the present proceedings. The learned counsel for the applicant has, however, raised two other contentions in support of the present application. It is firstly contended that the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner without asking for the surety is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 291 of the Succession Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the case reported in 1987 CLC 262. It is true in the above-referred case, I have taken the view that the Court has no power to dispense with the surety in the cases of grant of Letters of Administration under the Succession Act, but this view is not binding on the other learned Judges of this Court. In any case, the Letters of Administration in the present case were granted by Abdul Hayee Kureshi C.J., (as then was) on 17-5-1981 and the surety was dispensed with in the year 1983 and was such the above decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be a ground for revocation of the Letters of Administration under Section 263(a) of the Succession Act as neither the proceedings in which the Letters of Administration were granted was defective nor the order dispensing with the surety could be treated as without jurisdiction.
5. ' The last contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the letters of Administration is liable to be revoked as the petitioner had not submitted the accounts after issuance of Letters of Administration as required by law and the accounts which the petitioner subsequently filed in the case were substantially incorrect In reply, to the above objection, Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, contended that this ground was earlier raised by the applicant in her previous application which was rejected by Ajmal Mian, C.J., on 25-9-1988 and alternatively it is contended that the petitioner having filed the suit in this Court being Suit No,55/1989 against the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased claiming partition of her share and seeking relief for rendition of accounts, the present application is not maintainable. The suit filed by the c applicant relates to the partition of her share in the properties in respect whereof Letters of Administration have been granted and she has also claimed rendition of accounts against the petitioner who is defendant in that suit. In these circumstances, I will refrain from expressing any opinion on the contention raised by Mr.Idris Qureshi, the learned counsel for the applicant, with regard to correctness or otherwise of the accounts filed by the petitioner in this case, as this matter is now sub judice before a competent Court. I am also of the view that in view of the pendency of the suit, the present application is not maintainable for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit the accounts or that the accounts submitted by her in the Court do not reflect the true state of facts.
6. ' With these observations, the application is dismissed.