JUDGMENT :

Heard, the parties.

2. The instant CMP has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, in O.S. No.5 of 2017 and also the JC Order No.25 (Admin-II) dated 19.02.2020 whereby and whereunder the entire record of O.S. NO.5 of 2017 has been transferred to the Court of Sub Judge-III, Ranchi for trial and disposal.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Hereinafter called Act of 1925) for issuance of letter of administration with respect to the property fully detailed in the Schedule, bequeathed by Harbansh Prajapati in favour of his grand-sons by his last Will executed on 06.07.2009 and registered on 09.07.2009.

4. After issuance of notice, the application was contested by Opp. Party No.1 [Bisheshwar Prajapati] and others. Letters of Administration Case No.13 of 2014 was converted into O.S. No.05 of 2017 in view of the provisions as contained in Section 295 of Act of 1925.

5. The issues were settled and evidence was led on behalf of both the sides and the case was posted for final argument vide impugned order dated 29.02.2020 and after that vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2020, O.S. No.5 of 2017 was transferred to the Court of Sub Judge-III, Ranchi and renumbered as O.S. No.76 of 2020.

6. It is submitted in this regard that under Section 2(b)(b) of the Act of 1925, which defines the District Judge which means Judge of original jurisdiction and it was only the District Judge who was empowered to hear the matter within the meaning of Section 264 of the Act.

7. It is further submitted that the Sub Judge has no original jurisdiction to hear such testamentary suit, as such, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside. It is also submitted that even otherwise considering the stage of the suit where all the evidences were recorded and the case was posted for argument, as such, it will cause hardship to the petitioners as in the Court of sub-judge it shall be a de-novo trial. Reliance has been placed rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Md. Equbal & Ors. Vs. Madina Begum & Ors., reported in 2022 1 JLJR 668.

8. It is submitted by Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opp. Parties that once the grant of letters of administration has been contested, it became a title suit and, therefore, was transferred to the Court of Sub Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. There was no illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference.

9. The very short question arising out the present petition is in case where the application for probate or letter of administration has been contested, the testamentary suit shall proceed in the Court of District Judge or in the Court having jurisdiction to hear the original title suit?

10. Broadly speaking there are three types of jurisdiction namely jurisdiction as to subject matter, territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 264 of the Act of 1925 confers the jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of registration on the District Judge. Section 266 further states that the District Judge shall have power and authority in relation to the granting of probate and letters of administration, and all matters connected therewith, as our by law vested in him in relation to any civil suit or proceeding pending in his court. Under section 270 probate of the will or letters of administration to the state of a deceased person may be granted by the District Judge under the seal of his court. The procedure to be followed in case of contention has been laid down under section 295 which reads as under :

“In any case before the District Judge in