1. - These two revision petitions filed by the objector/non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Shashi Charan, wife of Ishwar Dan Charan and daughter of late Sh. Gangadan Charan, who is said to have executed a Will in favour of his grand-son, namely, Nachiketa Singh S/o Kishore Kumar Charan.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an application under Section 2.76 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed by said Nachiketa Singh, aged about 9 years, for grant of probate in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner through his mother Smt. Veena Charan W/o Kishore Kumar Charan. Inter alia, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the present petitioner- Smt. Shashi Charan (non-applicant No. 5), before the said Court alleging therein that probate could not be granted in favour of minor in view of Section 223 of the said Act, which stipulates that probate cannot he granted to any person, who is minor or is of unsound mind nor to any association of individuals unless it is a company which satisfies the conditions prescribed by rules to be made by notification in the Official Gazette, by the State Government in this behalf. The objector, therefore, contended that probate cannot be granted in favour of minor.

3. Learned District Judge, Bikaner, however, vide the impugned order dated 20.1.2009 rejected such application filed by the objector-Smt. Shashi Charan under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. while holding that even though probate cannot be granted in favour of minor, letter of administration can be granted to the legal -guardian of such minor under the provisions of Section 244 of the said Act, which provides that when a minor is the sole executor or sole residuary legatee, letters of administration, with the Will annexed, may be granted to the legal guardian of such minor or to such other person, as the Court may think fit until the minor has attained his majority at which period, and not before, probate of the Will shall be granted to him. By the same order, the learned Court below directed that the applicant-Nachiketa Singh may file amendment application substituting "letter of administration" in place of "probate" in the application under Section 276 of the Act, which permits application for probate or for letter of administration with the Will annexed. Accordingly, the applicant filed such application, which came to be allowed and again the non-applicant-Smt. Shashi Charan filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., which later on came to be rejected by another order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner on 3.11.2010.

4. Dissatisfied, two revision petitions have been filed in this Court by Shashi Charan viz. (i) Civil Revision Petition No. 3071/2009 DR(J) challenging the order dated 20.1.2009 and another revision being Civil Revision No. 235/2010 challenging the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the learned District Judge Bikaner.

5. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner-Smt. Shashi Charan vehemently submitted that :

(i) that petition under Section 276 of the Act has to be tried and decided as a suit and, therefore, without any amendment application, the Court invoking its suo moto powers could not have directed the applicant to amend his application tinder Section 276 of the Act substituting the word "Letter of Administration" for the word "Probate" and, thus, instead of granting probate, proceed to grant the letter of administration.

(ii) that in the order dated 20.1.2009 while the Court came to the conclusion that probate cannot be granted in favour of minor in terms of Section 223 of the Act, such petition deserved to be rejected and the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the present petitioner/non-applicant was required to be allowed.

(iii) that the applicant-Nachiketa Singh has filed the said application through his mother Smt. Veena Charan and not through his natural guardian, the father Kishore Kumar Charan and even such application was not maintainable and therefore, the learned