IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8839 of 2011 Gautam Pandit @ Chunnu Versus Om Prakash Pandit & Ors ----------- 02. 14.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge IV, Patna in Probate Case No.166 of 2010 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein to stay further proceeding of title (Partition) Suit No.408 of 2008 pending in the Court of Sub Judge Xth, Patna till disposal of the probate case. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 22.04.1992 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.200 of 1988 and submitted that during the pendency of the probate case, which has been field subsequent to the partition suit, the partition suit can be stayed till the disposal of probate case. The learned counsel further submitted that since the property involved in probate case and also in the partition suit further proceeding are liable to be stayed. From perusal of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court as contained in Annexure 3, it appears that while passing the said order, it has specifically been stated by the Division Bench that in view of the nature of 2 the order which we are going to pass, it is not necessary to decide this revision application on merit. Therefore, in that case, the merit of the impugned order under challenge in the revision application was not decided. In my opinion, therefore, it is not applicable in this case. Here, the partition suit has been filed in the year 2008 and subsequent to that the probate case has been filed in the year 2010 and application has been filed before the probate Court praying therein to stay the partition suit which is pending in the Court of Sub Judge. The question in the probate case is whether Will sought to be probated is genuine and last Will whereas so far partition suit is concerned, this question is not at all necessary. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this writ application and accordingly it is not a fit case where supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)