IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1668 of 2008 1. Rajeev Kumar son of Late Rameshwar Prasad Singh 2. Ramendra Kumar son of Late Rameshwar Prasad Singh Both residents of village Sahebganj Chapra, P.S. Chapra, District Chapra. 3. Ram Chandar Mandal son of Late Jugeshwar Mandal, 4. Kishori son of Raghu Mandal 5. Mohan Lal Yadav son of Late Nathuni Lal Yadav 6. Ram Charitar Sah son of Late Mahabir Prasad Sah 7. Shanti Devi wife of Ram Chandra Sah All resident of Mohalla Lal Bagh Tara Chak, P.S. Darbhanga Nagar, District Darbhanga…….. …Opposite parties-Petitioners. Versus 1. Baidyanath Prasad Khandelwal son of Late Satya Narayan Prasad, resident of mohalla Garhpar Biharsharif, P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda. ………………..Petitioner-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Rakesh Prasad 3. Raju Prasad 4. Bhola Prasad All opposite party nos.2 to 4 are sons of Late Ramehswar Prasad, residents of Mohalla Sahebganj, P.O. Sahebganj, District Chapra at present resident of Mohalla Lalbagh, Katki Bazaar, P.S. Town, District Darbhanga…………Opposite parties-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioners :Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad Khandelwal, (In Person) ----------- 07/ 26.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.1, who is appearing in person. 2. This civil revision has been filed by seven petitioners, who were objectors in the court below and have challenged order dated 22.07.2008 by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.5, Darbhanga rejected their petition under section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) for treating the probate case as a title suit because the parties were contesting Probate Case No.13 of 1992. 2 3. It is quite apparent that the said probate case was filed by Sri Baidyanath Prasad Khandelwal son of Late Satya Narayan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Katki Bazar under the Town, P.S. and District of Darbhanga for probate of will dated 02.01.1990 executed by Smt.Deorani Devi, who subsequently died leaving behind Anuradha Devi as her daughter. The said Anuradha Devi and her husband Rameshwar Prasad had also died leaving behind four sons and two daughters, namely Rakesh Prasad, Raju Prasad, Bholu Prasad, Nanhi Prasad, Smt. Ragni Devi and Minu Kumari and hence they were specifically mentioned in the petition for probate. 4. It further transpires that none of those persons have raised any objection before the learned court below, rather some other persons, who are petitioners of this civil revision had filed objections that the probate case be converted into a title suit, which has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 22.07.2008, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Such objections raised by those persons could not have been legally entertained as only such objections can be entertained which are raised by the heirs of the testator mentioned above, but they have not raised any such objection and accordingly the learned court below rightly rejected the objection raised by others. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of 3 the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 7. However, if any of the aforesaid sons and daughters of Late Anuradha Devi wife of Late Rameshwar Prasad, namely Rakesh Prasad, Raju Prasad, Bholu Prasad, Nanhi Prasad, Smt. Ragni Devi and Minu Kumari raise any objection under section 295 of the Act, the learned court below may entertain the same. It may be made clear that according to section 295 of the Act if such objection application is allowed, the probate case will take the form of regular suit only for deciding the genuineness of the execution of the will and not for declaration of title. Learned court below is also directed to expedite the disposal of the probate case. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )