1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.R.A. NO.799/2009 Manohardas @ Suresh P.Basantani @ Nirmalani Applicant Vs. Swamy Santokdas Darshandas & Ors. Respondents Mrs.Suhasini Mutalik for the applicant CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 14th JANUARY,2010 P.C. . This Revision Application is filed challenging the order passed by the 10th Jt.Civil Judge,Sr.Division, Pune rejecting the plaint under Order 7 , Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code as it is barred under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The applicant claims that he is the only legal heir of deceased Swami Purandas Nirmalani who has executed a Will dated 6/9/1992 in his favour and thus he claims the property of late Swamy Nirmalani on the basis of the said Will and has filed the impugned suit praying that the probate granted to the defendants/respondents by order dated 10/12/1993 by Civil Judge ,Sr.Division,Thane be declared null, void ab-initio as the said probate was obtained fraudulently and making false submissions suppressing the material facts from the Court. 2 2] Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed the suit in the year 1995 and it is part heard. However, at the time of cross examination of the original plaintiff i.e.the applicant , original defendants/ respondents have made application challenging the jurisdiction of Pune Court on the ground that it is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.She has pointed out that the respondents have obtained probate fraudulently on the basis of other Will of the year 1987. She has further submitted that the fact that 90% property of late Swamy Nirmalani situated at Pune which is the subject matter of the suit and the fact of status of the plaintiff that he is the sole legal heir of deceased Swamy Nirmalani were suppressed by the respondent while making application for probate. 3] Having gone through the order passed by learned Civil Judge,S.D.Pune , I do not find that there is any illegality in the order considering the provisions of section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Assuming that the probate is obtained fraudulently then remedy available for the applicant is only under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and so the applicant will have to pursue his claim and avail of 3 appropriate remedy before the same Court which has granted the probate i.e. Thane Court. Learned counsel in support of her submissions relied on ruling Krishna Kumar Birla Vs.Rajendra Singh Lodha and others , (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 300 and has submitted that if there are wider issues like title and declaration involved then the proceedings can be filed before any other Civil Court. The submissions of learned counsel would have been accepted if such prayers would have been specifically made in the plaint by the applicant. However, the relief sought is restricted to the revocation of the probate and it be declared as null and void abinitio . Under these circumstances I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge ,S.D. Pune . No interference is required in the impugned order. 4] However, considering the facts of the case and the long pendency of 14 years of the suit filed by the applicant, the applicant while seeking the similar relief is at liberty to agitate all other issues before Thane Court . Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)