Contested probate withdrawal and transposition can be upheld where defendants' substantial interest would otherwise be defeated.

In a contested probate proceeding, withdrawal may be refused where no sufficient reason or formal defect is shown and the respondents have a substantial interest in the subject property that would be defeated by withdrawal. The court may allow transposition of the defendants as plaintiffs under Order 23 Rule 1-A and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure when a substantial question remains for decision. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, new grounds not urged before the trial court are ordinarily not entertained, as review is confined to the legality and propriety of the impugned order on the material already placed below.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court was justified in refusing permission to withdraw the probate proceeding and in allowing the defendants to seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether new grounds not urged before the trial court could be entertained in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the trial court was justified in refusing permission to withdraw the probate proceeding and in allowing the defendants to seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order 23 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The petition for withdrawal did not disclose any sufficient reason or formal defect warranting grant of leave to withdraw. The Will under challenge showed a substantive interest of the respondents in the subject property, and withdrawal would have extinguished that interest despite their standing in the proceeding. In such a contested probate matter, the court could refuse withdrawal and, where defendants demonstrated a substantial question to be decided, permit transposition consistent with Order 23 Rule 1-A and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with the succession provisions relied upon in the reasoning.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit withdrawal and the direction permitting transposition were valid and required no interference.

Issue (ii): Whether new grounds not urged before the trial court could be entertained in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised to test the legality and propriety of the impugned order on the basis of the material placed before the trial court. Grounds not raised before the trial court cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time to improve the pleadings in revision.

Conclusion: The additional grounds were not entertained.

Final Conclusion: No infirmity was found in the impugned order, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a contested probate proceeding, withdrawal may be refused where it would defeat the substantial interest of defendants who seek transposition as plaintiffs, and supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to raise new grounds not urged before the court below.

---