IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16559 of 2011 Shambhu Sharan Tiwary & Ors Versus Re-Estate Of Late Radha Raman ---------------------------------- 2. 22.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 23.7.2011 passed by Additional District Judge-6th, Patna in Probate Case No. 87 of 2008 whereby the learned court below allowed the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the appointment of the administrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such type of restrain order could have been passed by the court below because the proceeding is a probate proceeding and the subject matter of the suit is not the property. According to the learned counsel only the question to be decided in the probate proceeding is, as to whether the will in question is genuine or not. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Atulabala Dasi vs. Nirupma Devi AIR (38) 1951 Calcutta 561 has held that “The powers of a Probate Court for the protection of the property which is the subject matter of the probate proceedings are regulated by Ss.247 and 269, 2 Succession Act but apart from those provisions the powers of that Court are wide enough to issue temporary injunctions restraining other persons from interfering with the properties which are the subject matter of testamentary disposition. A.I.R. (2) 1915 Cal. 565, Foll. It is open to the probate court not only to appoint an administrator pendente lite, but also to issue an order of injunction, temporary in character, pending the appointment of an administrator pendent elite. If such powers are exercised in probate cases by a probate court, there is no reasonable chance of any property being dissipated, pending the actual grant of a probate or the appointment of an administrator.” This decision of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court is complete answer to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In AIR 1962 Supreme Court 527 Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, the Apex Court has held that “Section 151 itself says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. In the face of such a clear statement, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Code control the inherent power by 3 limiting it or otherwise affecting it. The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. Further, when the Code itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court, there is no question of implying any powers outside the limits of the Code. Thus, there being no such expression in S.94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by Order 39 or by any rules made under the Code, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order 39, C.P.C., if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction.” In view of the above settled principles of law in supervisory jurisdiction the impugned order by which the parties have been directed to maintain status quo cannot be interfered with. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S./ A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)