MATUKDHARI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIARADHA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner had applied for grant of letters of administration with regard to a will dated the 2nd of May, 1941, executed by one Ram Naresh Singh, in the Court of the District Judge of Muzaffarpore. The application was numbered as probate Case No. 2 of 1943, and on the 26th of May, 1944, the petitioner was granted letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed. Later on Srimati Prem Devi opposite party No, 3, alleged that she was the step-sister of the testator and filed a petition for revocation of the letters of administration on the ground that no citation was issued to her By his order dated the 12th of February, 1954, the District Judge of Muzaffarpore revoked the letters of administration which he had already granted to the petitioner. The petitioner moved the High Court against the order of the District Judge revoking the letters of administration. But the appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the 2nd of December, 1958, and the order of revocation was upheld Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the District Judge of Muzaffarpur on the 22nd of January, 1959 for issuing special citations to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 in Probate Case No 2 of 1943. The District Judge rejected the application on the ground that the original probate case No. 2 of 1943 cannot be restored and the petitioner must take a fresh application for grant of letters of administration.

(2.) The petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Muzaffarpur dated the 31st of January, 1959, rejecting his application should not be set aside by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) In our opinion the District Judge of Muzaffarpore was erroneous in law in rejecting the application of the petitioner and in requiring him to file a fresh application for grant of letters of administration. It is manifest that the revocation of the letters of administration was made in this case on the ground that there was no citation given to opposite party No. 3 The effect of the revocation in these circumstances is not to revoke the entire proceeding, but only to revoke the actual order of the District Judge tainting letters of administration to the petitioner. It follows, therefore, that the original proceeding in probate case No. 2 of 1943 is revived after the order of revocation, and it is open to the petitioner to request the Court to restore the original Probate Case No. 2 of 1943 and to issue special citations to the opposite parties named in that petition, namely, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6. The view that we take is supported by the observations of the Privy Council in Ramanandi Kuer v. Kalawati Kuer, ILR 7 Pat 221 at p. 229: (AIR 1928 PC 2 at pp. 4-5) and of the Calcutta High Court in Aswini Kumar Chakravarty v. Sukhaharan Chakravarty, AIR 1931 Cal 717 at p 719. There is also an observation of Mookerjee, J. in Brindaban Chandra v. Sureswar Shaha, 10 Cal LJ 268 at p. 275 that the effect of revocation of a probate is to revive the original proceeding for the grant of probate. For these reasons we hold that this application should be allowed, the order of the District Judge of Muzaffarpur dated the 31st of January, 1959, should be set aside and the District Judge of Muzaffarpur is ordered to treat the application of the petitioner filed on the 22nd of January. 1959, as an application for revival of the original probate case and to proceed in accordance with law.