Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Both these revisions relate to probate proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act) therefore, they are proposed to be decided by a common order.

2. In view of the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act delay in filing Revision No. 215 of 1997 (defect) is condoned. As order dated September 24,1994 is in the nature of procedural direction, it does not call for any interference.

3. The learned District Judge, Jaipur City passed following order on November 16, 1996 (English translation) “Counsel for the parties present. As it is a contested matter, it be registered like a suit. Court-fee be deposited as per directions. The case be listed on December 21, 1996 for production of documents and for framing of the issues.”

4. Assailingthe aforesaid order, Mr. Arvind Kuihar learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously canvassed that the learned Court below did not properly appreciate the provisions contained in the Act. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error.

5. On the other hand, Mr. J. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner supported t