JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this application under section 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in T.S. (P) Case No. 43/2010 [formerly Misc. (P) Case No. 36/2010]. By virtue of the said order which was passed on petition No. 2064/2017 dated 6.12.2017, the prayer made for issuance of notice of the Collector of the District under the provisions of section 19H of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was kept pending for consideration at the time of final hearing.

3. The respondent herein is the petitioner in an application filed under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate of a perported will of late Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee, resident of Tezpur, District Sonitpur, Assam. It appears from the copy of the probate petition that the petitioner herein is the sole respondent in the said probate application. From the order impugned herein, it appears that the said probate proceeding was last posted at 8.2.2018 for cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses. At this stage, petition No. 2064/2016 dated 6.12.2017 had been filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of section 276(1)(d) of the Succession Act, 1925 to project that it was mandatory under the said provision that every probate petition must contain a statement about the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner's hand. It is submitted that the said provision is required to be read with the provisions of section 19H of the Court Fees Act, 1870 requiring under sub-section (1) thereof that when an application of probate or letters of administration is filed/made to any court, the court shall cause notice of the application to be given to the Collector. It is submitted that the provisions of section 19H of the Court Fees Act envisages that the State should get the appropriate Court Fee on the true value of the property which may come in the hand of the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that the provisions of sections 283(1)(c) and 283(2) of the Succession Act, 1925 has also not been complied with. It is submitted that from the copy of the order-sheet available with him, there is no order by the learned District Judge for citation being issued for fixing up in some conspicuous part of the Court House and in the office of the Collector of the District in the manner as deemed fit.

6. Hence, it is submitted that as the notices under section 19H of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the provisions of section 283(1)(c) and section 283(2) of the Succession Act, 1925 has not been complied with, the present application has been filed to challenge the order dated 8.12.2017, requiring the learned District Judge to issue notice to the Collector under section 19H of the Court Fees Act. In support of his submissions that the notices to the collector was very much essential, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to case of Mundrika Prasad Singh v. Mst. Kachnar Kuer, AIR 1955 Pat. 362.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the very purpose of filing the said petition No. 2064/2017 dated 6.12.2017 was to harass the respondent by delaying the adjudication of the probate suit on one ground or the other and that this point has been raked up after 8 years of the institution of this case. It is also submitted that there is no reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved by the impugned order because by the said order, petition No. 2064/2017 was not dismissed but it was kept pending for consideration at the time of final hearing.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent had also made an attempt to refer to the various events had taken place before the learned trial court in course of the trial wh