IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2121 of 2006 MAHESH PRASAD SINGH Versus INDU SINGH & ORS For the petitioner : - Sri Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the O.Ps. : - Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate. Sri Praveen Prakash, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 13.05.2009 Heard both the sides. The petitioner has filed present revision petition seeking setting aside the order dated 15.09.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, V, Aurangabad (Bihar) in Revocation Case No. 01 of 1999/01 of 2005 by which the learned Judge put the above revocation petition on hearing ex-parte by observing that the petitioner and other O. Ps. in the above revocation petition were purposely and intentionally evading to appear before the court in spite of the notices being properly addressed and duly sent in accordance with law. For the present purposes, suffice it to mention that an unregistered Will was got probated in favour of the petitioner and others behind the back of the O. Ps. 1, 2 and 3 and when they came to know about the fraud committed in getting the probate on the Will they filed revocation petition - 2 - seeking the revocation of the probate of the Will. It may be pointed out that the address of the petitioner and the opposite parties other than O. Ps. 1, 2 and 3 was the same as is presently given in the present petition in the court below and it is also not denied that the registered postal cover was sent containing the notices to the opposite parties specially to the heirs of Parsidh Narayan Singh and Ganesh Prasad Singh, but they did not appear during the course of the present hearing. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the O. Ps. 1, 2 and 3 that the present petitioner Mahesh Pd. Singh is the Post Master and was required to deliver the registered envelope containing the notices and he manipulated in it so as to frustrating the service of summons or so as to ensuring that the court does not get before it the required address of the opposite parties. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and other concerned opposite parties could not have the knowledge of the filing of the revocation petition on account of the non-service of the notices and also that they were residing at different places - 3 - and no notices were sent to them on their respective addresses, which was different from that as given in the present petition or in the revocation petition. The Court does not have any faith in the submission on the non-service of the summons on the concerned opposite parties, inasmuch as the statement on addresses given in the present petition are different appears false, inasmuch as the same address has been given by the petitioner in respect of those opposite parties in the present petition also. The Court was informed by the learned counsel for the O. Ps. 1, 2 and 3 that the same address was available to the court below which is given in the present petition also and that contention was not controverted by the counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the above facts, particularly on importance of service of summons, I find that the court below was perfectly justified for putting the hearing of the revocation petition ex-parte. The revision petition is dismissed as of no merit. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)