1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.15 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6044 OF 2007 Ravindra @ Ramesh Dinkar Sathe .. Petitioner Versus Shankar Appaji Jadhav (Sarnaik) Dead by Lrs. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandivadekar for petitioner Mr.A.B.Bagkar for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30th April 2008 P.C. . The order under challenge is passed on an application for revocation of probate. That order passed by the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court and this court, after hearing Mr.Bandivadekar, rejected the petition by observing that the concurrent findings do not 2 require any interference. 2. The apprehension expressed by Mr.Bandivadekar is that while issuing notice on the writ petition before admission, a statement of Mr.Bandivadekar is recorded that if the effect of the order is that the probate is revoked and such revocation means retrial proceedings for obtaining probate or registration thereof as suit, then, he would not be challenging the impugned order. Petitioner’s statement recorded at the stage of issuance of notice has been ignored, is the submission. 3. Once the application for issuance of probate was allowed and the remedy under section 383 was invoked by the aggrieved respondent, upon which the trial court passed the order revoking the probate, which is confirmed by the appellate court’s order, then, there is no question of re-trial of the application. Further, the 3 citation which was issued at the time of application being taken on record or caveat being lodged in pursuance thereof and, therefore, registration of the proceedings as suit is also a matter which will not arise in the peculiar facts of this case. Therefore, upon that ground or for that reason the order passed by me cannot be reviewed. 4. However, Mr.Bandivadekar’s apprehension is that if the petitioner desires to file substantive suit on title, the observations of the trial court or the lower appellate court which are confirmed by this Court should not constitute an impediment or bar in pursuing the said proceedings. Needless to clarify that if the petitioner desires to institute a suit on title, nothing prevents him from doing so. There is always liberty to file a suit. If the petitioner desires to assert his right, title and interest in the properties, then, it is settled 4 law that the orders of probate court do not decide such issues and they are open for being agitated before the competent civil court. All contentions of both sides are kept open. With this added clarification as well, there is no need to entertain review petition. It is accordingly disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)