IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10003 of 2010 HARI NATH PANDEY S/O LATE RAMAWATAR PANDEY R/O VILLAGE- BABHANI, P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ……………..INTERVENER…….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA. ……………..RESPONDENT 1ST SET. 2. RAJESH PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI NATH PANDEY. 3. SANTOSH PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI NATH PANDEY. 4. FIROSH PANDEY @ AWANISH PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI NATH PANDEY. 5. VINOD PANDEY S/O LATE DHUPNATH PANDEY. 6. DIPU PANDEY S/O LATE DHUPNATH PANDEY ALL 2 TO 6 R/O VILLAGE-BABHANI, P.S.-KATAYA, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ……………….APPELLANTS-RESPONDENT 2ND SET. 7. CHANDRABHAN MISHRA S/O LATE DEORAJ MISHRA. 8. MOST GUMA KUER W/O LATE SRI NATH PANDEY. ALL 7 AND 8 R/O VILLAGE-BADHANI, P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 9. LALITA DEVI W/O LATE SRI NATH TIWARI R/O VILLAGE- PATAHERWA, P.S.-PATACHERWA, DISTRICT-KUSHI NAGAR (U.P.) 10. BEERA DEVI W/O BEYASMUNI TIWARI R/O VILLAGE- SOTA DHARAHARA, P.S.-KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 11. KUNTI DEVI W/O RAMAYAN PANDEY R/O VILLAGE AND P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ………….OPPOSITE PARTY- RESPONDENT 3RD SET. 12. NAGENDRA PANDEY S/O LATE BHAGAWATI PANDEY. 13. RAMDEO PANDEY S/O LATE RAJENDRA PANDEY. BOTH 12 AND 13 R/O VILLAGE-BABHANI, P.S.- KATEYA, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ………………INTERVENER RESPONDENT 4TH SET. . For the petitioner : Mr. Ganapati Trivedi (Advocate) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey(Advocate) For the State : Himanshu Kumar Akela (A.C. to G.A.-5) ----------- 2 18-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 2 counsel for the State. This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.3.2010 passed in Probate Case No. 23 of 2007 by which Addl. District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-III, Gopalganj, rejected the intervention application filed by the writ petitioner for being added as a party to the said Probate case. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the heir of the executant of the will whereas the Court has only to consider in the Probate case whether the will had been executed by the person as claimed by the plaintiff. The question of title is not to be decided in a probate case. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a separate suit for his claim. S.P. (S. N. Hussain, J.)