D. K. Seth, J.: This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th July, 1997 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Revocation Case No. 43 of 1988 revoking the probate granted in Probate Case No. 100 of 1986.

Submission on behalf of the appellant :

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there was no material to show that the respondent/applicant No.1 was the legally married wife of the testator. According to him, the Probate Court, while deciding the application for revocation under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, cannot go into the question as to whether she is the legally married wife of the testator or not. In any event, the learned Trial Court had not conclusively found that she was the legally married wife. On the other hand, it was recorded that the possibility of her being the legally married wife cannot be ruled out. Therefore, there is no conclusive finding on the basis whereof the probate can be revoked. Unless it is found that she was the legally married wife, the respondents/ applicants No.2, 3 and 4 cannot claim any locus standi. As such, absence of citation in this case would not attract the mischief pro