The court clarified that revocation applications under the Indian Succession Act are treated as miscellaneous applications, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the objector to establish revocation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Baban Prasad the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.

2. I.A. No.5508 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 184 days occurred in preferring the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that on the wrong notion initially the impugned order was challenged in C.M.P being C.M.P.No.1196 of 2023. He submits that in the same C.M.P, it was found that the C.M.P was not maintainable and only the appeal can be maintained which was withdrawn by order dated 17.05.2024 with liberty to file the appeal and thereafter the present appeal has been filed. He submits in view of that, the delay has occurred.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 opposed the prayer and submits that proper explanation is not there.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih/ respondent no.2 submits that it is upon the Court to take into consideration about the filing of the case in wrong forum.

6. It is an admitted position that the said order was challenged in C.M.P. being C.M.P.No.1196 of 2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the appeal and pursuant to that, the instant appeal has been filed. It is well settled that if the wrong forum has inadvertently been chosen, that period can be condoned and such delay has occurred in the case in hand and the Court finds that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay and as such, the delay of 184 days in preferring the instant appeal is, hereby, condoned.

7. The instant I.A filed for condonation of delay stands allowed and disposed of.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents have addressed the Court in the main appeal.

9. The instant appeal has been filed under Order IXL Rule 1(f) of the CPC for setting aside the order dated 5.9.2023 passed in Revocation Case No.4 of 2020 under section 263 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of Probate Certificate Dated 22.05.2013 whereby the learned court has been pleased to struck off the defense of the appellants.

10. Mr. Manjul Prasad, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the respondent no.1, Smt. Ratanjot Kaur, daughter of late Sadilal Bagga has filed an application under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for setting aside the Probate Certificate Dated 22.05.2013 granted in Probate Case No.12 of 2011 and the order dated 05.03.2013 passed in the said Probate Case from the Court of Principal District Judge, Giridih, on the grounds mentioned in the petition claiming herself to be daughter of one Sadilal Bagga, and the said petition is annexed as Annexure-1. He submits that the appellants herein have appeared in the said revocation case and have filed written statement on 09.09.2021 challenging inter-alia the maintainability of the instant revocation case on various grounds including limitation, locus standi as well as that the Probate Certificate has been acted upon written statement contained in Annexure-2. He then submits that Revocation Case No.04 of 2020 has been filed by the Power of Attorney Holder Vikram Kumar Singh son of Shri Shankar Kumar Singh who has sworn affidavit of Revocation Case No.04 of 2020 and thereafter the matter remained pending due to Covid-19 pandemic. He submits that the learned court by the impugned order for non-production of the Will has been pleased to struck off the defense of the appellants herein and that has prejudice the case of the appellants. He submits that one application was filed on behalf of the appellant calling upon the respondent no.1 to file her Original School Living Certificate and College Leaving Certificate in the court to f