DWARIKA NATH PAHARI Vs. GANGA BISHUN PAHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who were Opposite parties in Misc. Case No. 18/2002 which was filed by the Opposite party of this civil revision under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) claiming a right of succession over the suit property, possession of which was alleged to be taken away by the revision-petitioners who were Opposite parties in the said Misc. Case.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2003 passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case by which the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gaya, had rejected the objection of the revision-petitioners seeking dismissal of the Misc. Case as not maintainable and for rejection of the same under the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision-petitioners contended that Section 193 of the Act, specifically provides that the District Judge to whom such application is made should before proceeding within the case, comply four requirements, namely, examination of applicant on oath, to enquire whether there was sufficient ground for believing that the party in possession had no lawful title, also to enquire that the applicant was really entitled and to see whether the application was bona fide and the applicant was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a suit. It was further contended that Section 194 of the Act provides the procedure for proceeding in such cases, which clearly shows that the Court should proceed with such cases only after being satisfied with respect to the aforesaid requirements provided under Section 193 of the Act.