ANNU SUBBA Vs. PRANAM RAI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in view of the dispute raised by the Petitioner, I am satisfied that this Revision petition can be disposed of at the Admission stage without issuing notice to the Respondents. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case without framing any issue which is contrary to Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The case is admittedly quite contentious between the parties. Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act provides that any case before the District Judge in which there is contention, the proceedings shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in which the Petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the Plaintiff, and the person who has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the Defendant.

(3.) The Revision Petitioner is admittedly the objector in the letter of administration proceedings. In terms of this provision, the trial Court is expected to, and must follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of the case. Implicit in this Section is the requirement to frame triable issues raised by both the parties. Having not done so, the trial Court has improperly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law. This calls for the interference of this Court. In the view that I have taken, this Revision petition is allowed by directing the learned Addl. District Judge, Shillong, to frame the issues involved in the case and thereafter proceed with the trial in accordance with law. As the Revision petition is disposed of at the admission stage, there shall be no order as to cost.