IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14124 of 2011 1. Shiv Kumari Devi W/O Late Laldev Singh R/O Vill.- Dharampur, P.S. and Distt.- Vaishali 2. Mala Sinha D/O Late Laldev Singh And W/O Kamlesh Kumar Singh R/O Vill.- Dharampur, P.S. And Distt.- Vaishali ….. Petitioners. Versus 1. Most. Chinta Devi W/O Late Harinandan Singh R/O Vill.- Agarpur, P.S.- Lalganj And Distt.- Vaishali 2. Jaduvansh Singh S/O Late Jagat Singh R/O Vill.- Agarpur, P.S.- Lalganj And Distt.- Vaishali 3. Raghuvansh Singh S/O Late Jagat Singh R/O Vill.- Agarpur, P.S.- Lalganj And Distt.- Vaishali 4. Ajho Devi D/O Late Jagat Singh, W/O Umakant Thakur R/O Vill.- Agarpur, P.S.- Lalganj And Distt.- Vaishali 5. Neelam Devi D/O Late Jagat Singh and W/O Rabindra Singh R/O Vill.- Agarpur, P.S.- Lalganj And Distt.- Vaishali….Respondents ------------------- 2 30.08.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to make necessary correction in the provision of law. Permission is accorded. Heard learned counsel Mr. Partha Sarthy appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Hajipur in Probate Case No. 3 of 1992, whereby the learned court below ordered that the application filed by the petitioner on 17.4.2009 for deciding the issue of limitation as preliminary issue, shall be heard that the time of final hearing of the 2 Probate Case itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Probate Case is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the decision of the Apex Court quoted in the impugned order because the Probate Case has been filed nine years after the death of Testator. Since after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not obligatory on the part of the court to decide the preliminary issue if it do not relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar created by any law. Further the issue must be question of law only. Here the question raised by the petitioner is not a pure question of law rather it is a mixed question of fact and law therefore, in my opinion, the learned court below has rightly held that this issue has to be decided at the time of final decision of the Probate Case along with other issues. In view of the above facts, I find no reason to interfere with the reasoning of the learned court below in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ 3 application is dismissed. M.Rahman (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)