M.S. Sonak, J.

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner inter alia, seeks a declaration that Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869 is void on grounds of inconsistency with and repugnancy to the Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

2. The declaration and consequential reliefs have been sought in the following facts and circumstances:

A) On 25.3.1997, Mr. Ebenezer Walter Baker filed Regular Civil Suit No.167 of 1977 seeking 1/12th share in the properties of late Dr. Baker. The petitioner came to be impleaded as Defendant No.5 in the said Suit, which was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution.

B) Upon demise of Ms. Eunice D. Baker, the Petitioner vide M.C.A.No.417 of 1997 applied for probate under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of her Will dated 4.4.1985 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune. This was granted by the Civil Judge on 12.12.1997.

C) Mr. Ebenzer Baker thereupon filed M.C.A. No.32 of 1999 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking revocation of the probate granted on 12.12.1997 before the Civil Judge Senior Division Pune. Upon demise of Mr. Ebenzer Baker, the M.C.A. was pursued by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the legal representatives of said Mr. Ebenzer Baker.

D) By judgment and order dated 30.1.2006, the Civil Judge Senior Division at Pune allowed M.C.A. No.32 of 1999 and revoked the probate granted on 12.12.1997.

E) On 20.4.2006, the Petitioner vide Civil Appeal No.137 of 2006 appealed to District Judge Pune against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Pune in M.C.A.No.32 of 1999. This Appeal came to be dismissed by the District Judge, Pune vide judgment and order dated 4.11.2008.

F) The Petitioner thereafter preferred Civil Revision Application No.686 of 2008 under Section 115 of the C.P.C. before this Court impugning the judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 passed by the District Judge, Pune. The memo of Revision Petition was amended to incorporate challenge to the provisions of Section 28A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869. Upon such amendment, the Revision Application was placed before the Division Bench of this Court for further consideration.

G) Ultimately, Civil Revision Application No.686 of 2008 was disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to prefer a Writ Petition in order to question viresof Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869.

H) Accordingly, the present petition came to be filed questioning inter alia, the viresof Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 primarily on the ground that the same is inconsistent with and repugnant to the provisions of Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

I) Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 :

(i) empowers the High Court to invest Civil Judges with jurisdiction to exercise powers of District Judges under the Indian Succession Act, 1865 and the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 [Section 28-A(1)..

(ii) Provides that every order made by Civil Judge so invested, shall be subject to appeal to the High Court or the District Court according as the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds or does not exceed ten lakh rupees [Section 28-A(2)..

(iii) Provides that every order of the District Judge passed in an appeal under sub-section (2) from the order of the Civil Judge shall be subject to an appeal to the High Court under the rules, contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals from appellate decrees [Section 28-A(3)..

J. In contrast, Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that every order made by a District Judge shall be subject to appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals.

K) The Petitioner contends that there is apparent conflict between the provisions of Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, which is a prior, provincial and general Legislation and Section 299 of the Indian Successi