IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1346 of 2008 RAM AYODHYA SHARMA Versus SATYAWAN SHARMA & ORS ----------- 5 11/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order of the court below refusing to stay the subsequent probate case on the ground of pendency of earlier title suit is absolutely correct and needs no interference by this Court. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of “Shayam Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar” reported in 1999 (1) P.L.J.R. 685 and another judgment in the case of “Matia Devi Vs. Smt. Masani Devi & Ors” reported in 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. 403 is wholly misplaced. The facts of those two cases were entirely different. In those two cases this Court having found that the title suit was earlier and the court below had stayed those title suit on the ground of subsequent probate case, had held that there was no justification in staying those earlier title suits. Thus the aforesaid two judgments do not actually 2 lay down a law that a probate case has to be stayed simply because an earlier Title Suit is pending between the parties. That is also infact import of the section 10 of the Code of Civil Proceeding requiring that the earlier suit has to be never stayed. Here however the converse is prayed which is simply not permissible. As a matter of fact the scope of title suit and the probate case are entirely different, whereas, in probate case question of tile cannot be gone into and only genuineness of the will has to be examined for the purpose of letter of administration or probate, and the scope of title suit is definitely larger going into root of the matter. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this civil revision application and accordingly the same is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar