Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Jaspreet Singh learned Amicus Curiae who has assisted with ability.

2. This Court having noticed neglect of duty on the part of learned counsel for appellant appointed Shri Jaspreet Singh as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court particularly on the aspect of jurisdictional objection reflected in the interim order passed by this Court on 3.2.2005.

3. This F.A.F.O. filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 assails the order passed in Misc. Case No. 118 of 1998(R) whereby the application filed by the opposite parties under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revoking the order dated 9.5.1994 was allowed and the probate proceedings were restored for fresh adjudication. It may be noted that the order dated 9.5.1994 was passed by the learned District Judge, Sultanpur whereas the application for revoking the order on being filed by the opposite party before the district judge was assigned to the Additional District Judge-Court No. 2, Sultanpur where the same was decided by annulling the order, hence the present appeal. At the initial stage when the appeal came up for orders, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 3.2.2005, which reads as under :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

It has been contended that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order annulling the probate granted by the District Judge under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.

Arguable points have been raised.

Admit.

Issue notice.

Till the next date of listing, the proceeding pending before the Additional District Judge for issue of probate shall remain stayed.

4. Having regard to the interim order passed by the Court, which remained operative throughout during pendency of this F.A.F.O., the question of jurisdiction was necessary to be considered in the light relevant provisions which are discussed hereinafter :

Section 295 of the Succession Act provides as under :

Section 295. Procedure in contentious cases.—In any case before the District Judge in which there is contention, the proceedings shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in which the petitioner for probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, shall be the plaintiff, and the person who has appeared to oppose the grant shall be the defendant.

The provision extracted above essentially defines the procedure which is to be adopted by the District Judge in contentious cases of probate or letters of administration. The jurisdiction of District Judge for dealing with the matters in the nature of probate proceedings emanates from Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act, which for ready reference is extracted as under :

Section 264. Jurisdiction of District Judge in granting and revoking probates, etc.—

1. The District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district.

2. Except in cases to which section 57 applies, no Court in any local area beyond the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, 1[***] shall, where the deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the State Government has, by a notification in the Official Gazette, authorised it so to do.

Sections 265 also provides for the disposal of non-contentious cases by the delegates of District Judge who are appointed by the High Court but in the present case, the initial order dated 9.5.1994 was passed by the District Judge and thereafter the application for revocation of said order on being filed came to be assigned to the Additional District Judge and thus, the question of jurisdiction has cropped up in the above background. Indisputably the District Judge of a district has jurisdiction to deal with the probate proceedings under Se