ORDER

This Civil Revision Application, u/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order below Exs. 150 and 152 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1982 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D. ), Porbandar. 

2. Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed in the Trial Court for Probate in respect of a will allegedly executed by late husband of present petitioner Shrimati Malti Vahuji. Her late husband Goswami Govardhaneshji Girdharlalji has executed a will under which the present petitioner is appointed administrator of the properties left behind by the deceased. The petitioner has therefore filed on 25-1-1982 aforesaid Application for Probate under Section (sic) of the Indian Succession Act. In response to the public notice which was issued in the newspaper one Goswami Natvargopalji Govardhandasji (since deceased) filed his objections and since he died during the pendency of the proceeding his widow present respondent No. 1 was added as respondent. Respondent No. 2 being the step son and respondent No. 3 being the step daughter of late Goswami Govardhandasji have supported the objections filed by the Respondent No. 1. 

3. It must be stated at his stage that the said objector Goswami Natvarlalji Govardhaneshji (since deceased) instituted Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1982 for partition of coparcenary properties inter alia contending that movable and immovable properties left behind by deceased Goswami Govardhanashji were ancestral properties in his hand and as son of deceased Govardhaneshji he has his share in coparcenary properties. 

4. In such proceeding respondent No. 1 filed an application as Ex. 150 on 15-2-1992 purporting to be an application u/S. 295 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") to request the Court to register Civil Misc. Application for probate as a regular suit treating the applicant as plaintiff and respondents as defendants and thereafter to decide such proceeding as regular civil suit. In such application inter alia respondent No. 1 prayed that petitioner should be called upon to produce all documents and title deeds of immovable properties shown in the Schedule of the property annexed to the application for probate and/or to make discovery of the documents and to produce those documents which are in possession or custody of the petitioner. 

5. The respondent No. 1 also gave another application as Ex. 152 dated 20-2-1992 inter alia contending that the application for probate filed by widow of deceased Goswami Govardhaneshji as well as Special Civil Suit No. 9/82 filed by the respondents for partition of the ancestral property should be consolidated and tried together inasmuch as widow of deceased is claiming under a will and she has applied for probate while respondent are challenging the genuineness, legality and validity of the will both in their reply as well as in the substantive suit filed by them for partition of the property, and therefore issues which arise in both the proceedings between the parties are substantially the same and findings on such issues in one proceeding are likely to affect the finding in another proceeding, and therefore the application for probate as well as the special civil suit should be consolidated and tried together. 

6. It is pertinent to note that such applications are given in application for probate almost after 10 years of the proceeding and the same were seriously opposed by the present petitioner. The petitioner resisted such application by contending that application for probate does not become a regular suit u/S. 295 of the said Act and that in such application the Court cannot hold inquiry about the title of the deceased over the properties left behind by him. It was also contended that the Court has only to decide the legality or validity of the will executed by the deceased. About consolidation of the proceeding it was contended by the present petitioner that in both the proceeding evidence has already b