JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners being aggrieved of the framing of the issues by the Court of Principal District Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as “the probate court”) vide order dated 19.11.2016 in an application filed by the petitioners under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act, SVT, 1977 (for short “the Act”), has assailed the same on the ground inter alia that there was no requirement of framing of the issues in the miscellaneous proceedings, particularly when the facts before the learned probate court were not in dispute and once the learned probate court had heard the arguments finally in the application filed by the petitioners, the same was required to be decided on the basis of material available before the Court, but instead of doing so, the learned probate court has shrugged off its responsibility to decide the matter.

2. Mr. Virender Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were necessary parties but were not arrayed as parties by the respondent in the petition filed under Section 62 of the Act and also the respondent had concealed the material facts from the probate court, so once the facts were not in dispute, the learned probate court should have decided the application field by the petitioners for revocation of the probate on the basis of the record available before the Court and there was no requirement at all for framing of the issues.

3. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Thakur, learned senior counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition, as the learned probate court has not decided any issue, of which the petitioners can claim themselves to be aggrieved. He further argued that the petitioners had no locus to file an application for revocation of probate, therefore, the learned probate court had rightly framed the issues in an application seeking revocation of probate.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The respondent had filed an application under Section 62 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1977 and the learned probate court vide its order dated 14.06.2014 issued the letter of Probate and Administration. The petitioners filed an application under Section 50 of the Act for revocation or annulment of letter of Probate and Administration, thereby pleading that the Will was executed by the deceased fraudulently, as the deceased was not the owner of the whole property bequeathed by her by virtue of Will and also that the grant was obtained by the respondent fraudulently by making a false suggestion and by concealing the material facts from the probate Court.

6. The respondent filed the response to the application under Section 50 of the Act and objected the claim of the petitioners and denied the allegations levelled against him in respect of concealment of facts and making of false statement of facts.

7. From the record, it transpires that the learned probate court heard the arguments on number of dates of hearing and finally vide order dated 19.11.2016 framed the following issues.

(1) Whether applicants have locus standi to seek the revocation/annulment of the Probate and Administration granted in favour of non-applicant by this Court”s order dated 14.06.2014? OPP

(2) Whether non-applicant by concealing material facts has fraudulently obtained the letter of Probate from this Court on 14.06.2014? OPP

(3) Relief?

8. As per the mandate of Section 50 of the Act, the grant of probate or letters of administration can be revoked or annulled for just cause. The expression “just cause” has been explained in an explanation appended to Section 50 of the Act. This Court would not determine the merits of claim of either of the parties as the only issue, which is to be examined by this Court, is in respect of framing of the issues by the learned probate court.

9. As per the mandate of Section 55 of the Act, the proceedings in relation to Probate and Administration depending upon the circumst