WP(C) 6127/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr S Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs VL Singh, le arned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Also, heard Mr AK B hattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4. The petitioner who is the opposite party in Misc(P) Case No.36/2010 and also in Misc(J) Case No.37/2010 ~ pending in the Court of learned District Judge , Sonitpur, Tezpur ~ which were registered on basis of an application filed by t he present respondent No.4 praying for grant of probate and for grant of injunct ion, respectively, has filed the present application under Article 226 of Consti tution of India challenging the order of injunction granted by the learned Distr ict Judge in the said probate proceeding and for declaring the will, which was s ought to be probated, as manufactured, shame, colourable, collusive and fake doc ument. Against the order of injunction granted by learned Court below, an appea l is provided for under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the code of civil procedure. That apart no declaration as sought for by petitioner declaring that the will which w as sought to be probated in aforesaid probate proceeding is a manufactured, sham e, colourable, collusive and fake document can be made by a writ Court in exerci se of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as it requires examination of evidences and as such conveniently be made by the learn ed District Judge, while deciding the probate proceeding instituted by present r espondent No.4. That being the position, I do not consider it to be a fit case to entert ain the present writ proceeding and hence it is dismissed. It will, however, not debar the petitioner from challenging the order of injunction passed by learned Court below in appeal, where she is at liberty to pose the question of jurisdic tion of the probate Court to pass the order of injunction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.