L.S. Jamir, J.

1. Both F.A. No. 2 (K) of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 117(K) of 2014, are directed against the Order dated 27.02.2014, passed in CMC No. 01/2014 arising of Probate Case No. 01 of 2013, by the District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur. Accordingly, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Imkong Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in F.A. 2 (K) of 2014 and for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 117 (K) of 2014. Also heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in F.A. No. 2 (K) of 2014 and for the respondent No. 1, in W.P. (C) No. 117 (K) of 2014 and Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 117 (K) of 2014.

3. The case of the appellants/petitioners in brief is that the one Dr. Srinibash Debnath, impleaded as the sole respondent in F.A. No. 2 (K) of 2014 and respondent No. 1, in W.P. (C) No. 117 (K) of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed a Probate Application before the District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, being Probate Petition No. 1/2013. praying for probate of the last Will and Testament of late Sudhir Kumar Dutta alias Kaloo Dutta, son of late Tarini Chandra Dutta (Testator, for short) who died on 25.06.2014. The respondent was appointed as the Executor by the Testator and is not a beneficiary of the bequeathed properties of the Testator.

The learned District & Sessions Judge. Dimapur issued notices to the petitions and others, directing to appear before the Court and a notice was also published in the Nagaland Post, an English Local Daily, inviting claims and objections, if any, from the' heirs successors.

The appellant/petitioners, accordingly, filed a Misc. Application No. 01/2014 under Order 7. Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Probate Application.

One Mrs. Banu Dhar, one of the successors of the Testator also filed written statement challenging the genuineness of the last Will and Testament of the Testator.

The appellants/petitioners also, filed 3 (three) other Miscellaneous Applications being CMC No. 05/2014 praying for grant of status quo, CMC No. 06/2014 praying for appointment of Receiver and CMC No. No. 07/2014 praying for appointment of local commission in respect of the suit property.

The sum and substance of the objection raised by the petitioners against the Probate petition, as well as in these present petitions is that the bequest made is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 more particularly, Sections 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 126 & 127 and as such, the bequest is void. Secondly, an issue was also raised as to whether the Probate Application disclosed material facts pertaining to the indigenous identities of the beneficiaries when the local legislation prohibits obtaining possession of immovable properties in the State of Nagaland by non-indigenous inhabitants.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below has distorted the actual submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, suppressed his actual submissions, the actual issues raised in the application and rejected the CMC Application by probating the Will despite one Banu Dhar, filing a written statement against the Probate Application.

5. According to the Id. Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the power and jurisdiction of the Probate Court cannot be confined to only examining question of facts, such as, whether the Testator was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will, or whether it was shrouded with suspicious circumstances.

6. Therefore, the Order dated 27.02.2014, passed in Misc. Application No. 01/2014, arising of Probate Case No. 01/2013 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur has been challenged on the ground that the trial Court below was absolutely based towards the resp