IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.422 of 2007 BRIJ NANDAN THAKUR, SON OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, I.T.I. COLONY BETTIAH, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN. (BETTIAH). … OPPOSITE PARTY …. PETITIONER Versus 1. KRISHNA RANI THAKUR, WIFE OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – NADDA, P.O. – BHAIROGANJ, P.S. – BAGAHA, DISTRICT – BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MINISTERIAL QUARTER, PURNIA COURT COMPOUND, P.S. K. HAT, DISTRICT – PURNIA. … PETITIONER OPP. PARTY….. IST SET. 2. KUMAR NILOTPAL, SON OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – NADDA, P.O. – BHAIROGANJ, P.S. – BAGAHA, DISTRICT – BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MINISTERIAL QUARTER, PURNIA, COURT COMPOUND P.S.K. HAT, DISTRICT – PURNIA ... PETITIONER … OPP. PARTY…IST SET. 3. MOSTT. MADHUMATI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, I.T.I. COLONY BETTIAH, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN. ... OPP. PARTY…OPP. PARTY 2ND SET. 4. SUDARSHAN THAKUR, SON OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, I.T.I. COLONY, BETTIAH, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN. ... OPP. PARTY – OPP. PARTY…2ND SET. 5. SMT. SAVITA DEVI, DAUGHTHER OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, I.T.I. COLONY, BETTIAH, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARAN. …OPP. PARTY…OPP. PARTY…2ND SET. 6. MISS RAMITZ KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, I.T.I. COLONY, BETTIAH, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. … OPP. PARTY … OPP. PARTY 2ND SET. 7. MISS MAMTA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE AYODHYA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, I.T.I. COLONY, BETTIAH, P.S. – BAGAHA, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPRAN. ... OPP. PARTY .. OPP. PARTY 2ND SET. ----------- 2 02 13.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner who was opposite party in Probate Case No. 1 of 2002 and has challenged order dated 22.01.2007 by which the learned Additional District Judge - Ist Purnea, rejected his petition for getting the signature of the testator on the will compared with his signature on his service book. It is not in dispute that the testator was earlier District Education Officer, Purnea and the learned court below has found that calling the service book was not necessary as the signature of the testator may be obtained from his pass book of the treasury office. 3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any justification to allow the prayer. 4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. kundan (S. N. Hussain, J.)