The central legal point established in the judgment is that the application u/S. 10 of the Act of 1963 was not maintainable, as the matter was already sub-judice with the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This special appeal u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been preferred by the appellant- petitioner against the order dated 110.2000 passed by the learned Single” Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Petition No. 5 0/98, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant-petitioner u/S. 10 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1963’). (2). The necessary facts giving rise to this special appeal are as following:

The appellant-petitioner filed an application u/S. 10 of the Act of 1963 before this Court on 23.1998, which was registered as 13. Civil Misc. Petition No. 50/98, inter-alia stating that appellant-petitioner’s father Shreekrishan Dave (Hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was residing at Pali in the ancestral house. The appellant-petitioner has been in service in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and was posted at Jodhpur since 1984 and the wife of the deceased was also living with the appellant-petitioner al Jodhpur. The deceased was retired as Teacher, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan and had been living at Pali and he was interested in pursuing the private job of doing ‘sewa puja’ and other religious pursuits at Pali, The deceased died on 27.2.1998 and at the time of his death, deceased had left various assets including deposits of Bank, Post Office, securities etc. and cash amounting to about Rs. 2 lacs. It is further staled in the application that taking undue advantage of deceased living all along at Pali, the respondents no. 6 to 13 misguided deceased and since they were related to him, it was not difficult for them to misguide deceased. It is further stated in the application by the appellant-petitioner that he had the apprehension that these persons have removed many articles left by the deceased and on being asked by the appellant-petitioner, they started, fighting and thus, these persons have removed many assets and are further trying to misappropriate them and if these persons were allowed to do so, the appellant-petitioner would be deprived of his claim. Therefore, the present application u/S. 10 of the Act of 1963 was filed by the appellant-petitioner with the prayer that in order to avert the danger of misappropriation, deterioration or waste of the assets of the deceased, the Administrator General concerned be directed to immediately collect and take possession of all the assets of the deceased and to act under the direction of this Court.

(3). This application of the appellant-petitioner was contested by some of the respondents by filing a separate reply and in the file, there is a reply dated 19.1999 filed by the respondents no. 8, 11 and 12 stating inter-alia that the appellant-petitioner in the application u/S. 10 of the Act of 1963, has not incorporated all the legal representatives of the deceased and beneficiary of the Will executed by the deceased and, therefore, on this ground alone, the same may be dismissed. It is further stated in the reply that a separate petition being Civil Misc. Case No. 43/1998 for issuance of probate is already pending in the Court of District Judge, Pali in respect of the Will executed by the deceased and in that petition, the appellant-petitioner is also shown as non-applicant no. 1 and the deceased executed Will in favour of Shrimali Brahman Samaj Sansthan. From this point of view also, the present application is not maintainable. It is further stated in the reply that for ascertained sum, the Administrator General cannot be appointed to look after the property since this amount can be recovered by a suit. From this point of view also, the application of the appellant-petitioner u/S. 10 of the Act of 1963 is liable to be-dismissed. (4). The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 110.2000 dismissed the application of the appellant-petitioner u/S. 10 of the Act of 1963 holding inter-alia:

1. That he was not satisfied looking