1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.61 of 2008 ----------- Mahesh Pd. Singh, son of late Bhagwan Singh, Resident of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, ……… Petitioner Versus 1. Indu Singh, D/o late Ramjanam Singh, W/o Narayan Singh Resident of village Kamar Bigha, Koshila, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya. 2. Anju Singh, D/o late Ramjanam Singh, w/o Satyendra Singh, resident of village Rasalpur, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. 3. Manju Singh, D/o late Ramjanam Singh, W/o Dhananjay Kumar Singh, resident of village Dumariya, P.O. +P.S. Dumariya, District Gaya. …Appellants-Objectors-Opposite Parties. 4. Chandrakanta Devi, W/o late Prasidh Narayan Singh, Resident of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. &District Aurangabad 5. Urumila Devi, w/o late Sanjay Kumar Singh, d/o late Prasidh Narayan Singh, Resident of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. & District Aurangabad 6. Amit Kumar Singh 7. Sumit Kumar Singh Both minor sons of late Sanjay Kumar Singh, Resident of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. &District Aurangabad and under the guardianship of their mother, namely, Urmila Devi. …Appellant no.1-Opp. Party no.1. 8. Phulasraj Devi, w/o late Ganesh Pd. Singh, resident of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. &District Aurangabad 9. Anil Ashutosh 10.Ashutosh Anil Both sons of late Ganesh Prasad Singh, Residents of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. &District Aurangabad 11. Rudradeo Narayan Singh, son of late Bhagwan Singh, Resident of village Bagaiya, P.O. Pokharahan, P.S. &District Aurangabad …Applicant no.4-Opposite Party no.4. ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Birendra Kr. Singh No.1,Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. ------ 03/ 05.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by opposite party no.3-petitioner challenging order dated 09.10.2007, by which learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-V, 2 Aurangabad, rejected his application under Part-I of Article 123 of the Limitation Act praying that Revocation Case No. 01 of 1999 filed by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 was barred by law of limitation and was fit to be rejected. 3. It transpires that the revision-petitioner along with opposite parties no. 4 to 11 had filed Probate Case No. 3 of 1994 (1/1995), which was allowed by the learned court below on 31.07.1997 and ultimately letters of administration was signed on 19.01.1998. 4. It further transpires that the aforesaid letters of administration and the order were challenged in Revocation Case No. 01 of 1999 by opposite parties no.1 to3, who were not parties to the probate case. It further transpires that the petitioner appeared in the said revocation case and filed an application dated 24.09.2007 for dismissing the revocation case as barred by law of limitation. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 09.10.2007, which is impugned in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid impugned order of the learned court below, but it is apparent from a perusal of the materials on record as well as the arguments made in this case, that admittedly order was passed in the probate case on 31.07.1997 and letters of administration was signed on 19.01.1998, whereafter revocation petition was filed on 04.05.1998, which on the direction of learned Additional District Judge-I, 3 Aurangabad was registered as Revocation Case No. 01 of 1999 by order dated 26.05.1999. 6. The point in issue is that applicants-opposite parties no.1 to 3 had claimed that they got knowledge of the order in the probate case and signing of letters of administration on 19.04.1998 and, thereafter, they immediately filed the revocation petition on 04.05.1998 i.e. within 30 days as prescribed under the Limitation Act. On the other hand, the petitioner, who was opposite party in the revocation case, challenged the date of knowledge, whereafter evidences were led by both the parties. Thereafter, the learned court below has come to the conclusion that although the applicants were able to state and prove their date of knowledge as 19.04.1998, but the opposite parties of the revocation case neither specified nor proved the date on which the applicants had got the knowledge of their probate case. 7. Furthermore, the learned court below has considered the entire materials in detail and has come to the conclusion that the applicants had filed the revocation case within 30 days of their coming to know about the said order passed in the probate case. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. ) 4