The main legal point established in the judgment is that the probate of a Will executed outside the local limits of the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, and Bombay is not necessary under Sec. 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

JUDGMENT

SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'CPC') against the judgement and decree dtd. 14/5/2022, passed by the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit RCS-A No.1228-A/2021; whereby, the plaint filed by the appellant has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the civil suit for declaration of title, permanent and mandatory injunction, possession and other consequential reliefs against the respondents/defendants.

3. Undisputedly, the appellant/plaintiff is the daughter of Late Shri Sharad Kumar Sanghi whose Will dtd. 7/8/2019, is being sought to be executed by the plaintiff in this suit.

4. In the aforesaid civil suit, number of reliefs have been sought by the plaintiff surrounding the Will dtd. 7/8/2019, suffice it to say that they run into five foolscap pages.

5. After the defendants were served in the suit, instead of filing the written statements, two applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC were filed by them, one by the defendant no.2 Ragni Sanghi, whereas the other application was filed by defendants no.3,6,7 and 8. The application filed by defendants no.3,6,7 and 8 was dismissed by the learned judge of the trial Court, however, the application filed by the defendant no.2 Ragini Sanghi was allowed and the suit was rejected on the ground that the same is barred under Ss. 213, 227 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act of 1925'). It was contended by the defendant no.2 that before filing of the suit, the probate of the will dtd. 7/8/2019, has not been obtained.

6. Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned senior counsel assisted by Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the learned judge of the trial Court has erred in wrongly interpreting the provisions of the Act of 1925, more particularly Ss. 57, 213 and 276 of the Act of 1925. Counsel has also submitted that the law is already settled that a Will which has been executed other than the local limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay are not required to be probated and the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and by this Court are also available to substantiate the aforesaid proposition.

7. Shri Jaiswal, has also submitted that none of the decisions cited by the appellant/plaintiff in support of their contentions have been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order despite the fact that the reference of all the judgement was made in the order.

8. Thus, it is submitted that there was no occasion of the learned District Judge, Indore to reject the plaint despite there being no ambiguity in the law which has also been clarified by the Supreme Court and this Court time and again. It is submitted that the impugned order be set-aside and the matter may be remanded back. Reliance has also been placed by shri Jaiswal on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanta Yadav Vs. Om Prakash Yadav and others (2020) 14 SCC 102, Rupinder Singh Anand Vs. Gajinder Pal Kaur Anand 2015(4) MPLJ 392, Shri Bishwanath Banik and another Vs. Smt. Sulanga Bose and others(Civil Appeal No.1848/2022) and Phool Singh Vs. Kosabai reported in ILR 1998 MP 689.

9. On the other hand, Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as learned judge of the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case, and has come to a conclusion that the suit cannot be maintained in the absence of the will being probated. Counsel has also submitted that in the present case even the relief clause of the plaint clearly