1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2008 (HERALD PRASHANT LALL Vs DORTHY SUDHAKAR RAMTEKE) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : AUGUST 01, 2008. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment of the learned 10th Ad-hoc District Judge, Nagpur, confirming the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.994/1996 by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. 2. The applicant is one of the children of Francilla Lall. Francilla Lall executed a Will on 19.05.1992. The respondent, who is applicant's sister, is beneficiary in the Will. She filed an application for grant of probate and since it was contested, the application was turned into civil suit. After considering the pleas raised and evidence tendered by the parties, the learned Civil Judge Sr.Dn., Nagpur granted probate of the Will holding in favour of respondent Dorthy. The applicant preferred an 2 appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. This is how the applicant is before this Court invoking revisional jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though, normally, concurrent finding of fact would not be disturbed by the High Court, this is not an absolute rule and there are some well recognized exceptions as enumerated in para 17 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kashmir Singh V. Harnam Singh, reported at AIR 2008 SC 1749, as under : “17. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 3 4. In this case, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that at the time of of execution of the Will Francilla Lall testatrix was residing separately in the rented premises. He pointed out that the sister of the testatrix Nirmala Swamy was summoned as P.W. 1 on behalf of the plaintiffs themselves. She has stated in her deposition that when Francilla Lall was residing at her house she has executed the Will of her property. This part of the deposition was reproduced by the learned Judge in para 14 of his judgment. However, the learned Judge went on to hold in paragraph 20 of the judgment that Francilla Lall was residing separately in a rented premises. 5. First, there is no contradiction in the observations of the learned Judge. The point, which the learned Judge was required to consider, was, whether the testatrix was residing in the house of the plaintiff so as to be influence the plaintiff for making bequest. Where she was residing in rented house or in the house of Smt. Nirmala Swamy, would not matter. In any case, Smt. Nirmala Swamy may herself be residing in the rented house. Therefore, the statement on which the learned Judge 4 has relied, may be correct. Further while observations in Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh no doubt enable the High Court to examine even the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by two Courts below, these observations came in the context of second appeal and not of a revision. 6. Revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless it is shown that the learned trial Judge or the Judge of the first appellate Court has committed some gross error apparent in face of the record, interference in the revisional jurisdiction is not warranted. Such is not the present case. In view of this, the revision is dismissed. JUDGE RR.