IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.335 of 2007 RESH KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PALLI PARAGNA NAIPUR, P.O. AND P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI, AT PRESENT RESIDING IN MOHALLA MIACHAK, SANICHARASTHAN, P.O. AND P.S. BEGUSARAI TOWN, DISTT. BEGUSARAI. ------ APPLICANT-APPELLANT Versus 1. PRASHANT KUMAR 2. PRASUN KUMAR BOTH SONS OF SRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PALLI PARGANA NAIPUR, P.O. AND P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT. BEGUSARAI AT PRESENT RESIDING IN MOHALLA MIA CHAK SANICHARASTHAN, P.O. AND POLICE STATION BEGUSARAI TOWN, DISTT. BEGUSARAI. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES-RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7. 28.02.2011 Heard the parties. The appellant is aggrieved with the order dated 15.5.2007 passed by the Sub Judge-I, Begusarai, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2001 by which he has refused an application for revocation of order granting probate to the Respondents No. 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no dispute that the appellant’s father was one Rameshwar Sharma who had two sons, i.e. the petitioner and one Suresh Kumar Sharma and whose sons were the Respondents No. 1 and 2. A probate case was filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 for declaration of a Will dated 29.7.1977 executed by Late Rameshwar Sharma on 29.7.1997. By virtue of the genealogy, there cannot be any dispute that the Appellant being the son of Late Rameshwar 2 Sharma, was an interested party despite which he was not cited as such in the Probate Case. When the Appellant learnt off the final order of Probate on 8.5.2001, he filed an application for revocation of the said order on 17.5.2001 which was disallowed on the ground that the Appellant had adequate notice and he had filed the application way back on limitation. The Appellant argues that there was no question of any adequate notice to the Appellant since, he was not cited as an interested party and there being no period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, there could be no question of the application being time barred. The learned counsel for the Respondents attempts to clarify that whether the Appellant was cited as an interested party or not was irrelevant, in the facts of the case, since he had adequate notice about the Probate Case and he should have appeared suo motu. He also argues that the application for revocation was filed after much delay and, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the court below. On considering the rival submissions when it is admitted position that when the Appellant is the son of Late Rameshwar Sharma, whose Will was sought to be probated, the Appellant will naturally be an interested party and he not being cited as such, was a major cause for concern to the Appellant and, therefore, he rightly filed an application for revocation of the Will on the ground of not having adequate notice about the 3 Probate Case. Further, since no period has been prescribed for an application for revocation of the order of Will, on this ground too, the application is fit to be allowed. In view of such, the application is allowed and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh adjudication of the matter. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)