( 1 ) ADVOCATE for the appellant having been elevated as a Judge of this Court, the Registry had issued notice to the appellant, and although the said notice is served long back, the appellant has not engaged any advocate nor has appeared in person to conduct the Appeal.

( 2 ) MR. D. R. Dalal, learned advocate appeared for the respondent and has argued the matter on behalf of the respondent.

( 3 ) THE present First Appeal is filed by one Kanubhai Hargovinddas Dave, who is the original opponent of Probate Application No. 14 of 2002 and original applicant of Review Application No. 36 of 2002.

( 4 ) THE present respondent has preferred Probate Application No. 14 of 2002 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat. In the aforesaid application, the present appellant gave an application Exh. 14 under sections 19 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the property of the deceased testator is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Valsad Court, and since no property of the deceaed testator is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Surat Court, the said Probate Application may be rejected on the ground that the Court at Surat has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the same. The learned trial Judge, by his order dated 17. 01. 03 rejected the said application Exh. 14 as the Court found that part of the property is situated within the territorial limit of the Court and it was, therefore, held that both the Courts, i. e. the Courts at Surat and Valsad, have got jurisdiction to decide the same. The present appellant thereafter preferred Review Application No. 36/03 by invoking the provisons of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the trial Judge rejecting the Review Application, this First Appeal is preferred. However, while challenging the said order passed by the trial Court in Review Application, a reference is also made to the order passed below Exh. 14 by which the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to decide the Probate Application. In the appeal memo, the appellant has stated as under: "being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 8th August, 2003, passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge (S. D), Surat in Review Application No. 36 of 2003 whereby the Ld. Civil Judge rejected the Review Application preferred by present appellant without considering documents on record and exceeded its jurisdiction assigning reasons which were not part of the plaint or any circumstantial evidence and the order dated under Exhibit-14 dated 17. 02. 2003 rejecting the preliminary objection of jurisdiction raised by the appellant, the appellant prefers the present appeal on the following amongst other grounds".

( 5 ) SO far as the order passed below Exh. 14 is concerned, the same deals with an application submitted by the present appellant in Probate Application No. 14 of 2002. In the said application, on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the Civil Court at Surat has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the Probate Application as the property of the testator is not situated within the local limits of Surat. The said application Exh. 14 was filed under Section 19 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge, by order dated 17. 02. 03 rejected application Exh. 14 in Probate Application No. 14 of 2002. Thereafter the present appellant submitted the aforesaid review application and in the title of the said application, it is stated that the said application is under section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. As stated earlier, the learned trial Judge, by an order dated 08. 08. 03 rejected the prayer of the present appellant to review the order dated 17. 02. 03 passed below Exh. 14 in Probate Application No. 14 of 2002. Aggrieved by the order dated 08. 08. 03 passed in the Review Application, the present appeal is filed.

( 6 ) IT is required to be noted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document