Ajay Kumar Sinha v. Roshan Kumar Sinha And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14316 of 2015 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Sinha .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Roshan Kumar Sinha & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwajeet Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 02-12-2015 Heard learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma on the Interlocutory Application No.7620 of 2015.

2. At the time of hearing of this interlocutory appliction the learned counsel submitted that the writ application may also be heard on merit in admission matter. Accordingly, I heard him on merit in admission matter also.

3. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.07.2015/16.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII, Patna in Probate Case No.45 of 2015 whereby the court below considering the facts of the case held that the caveat application filed by the present petitioner is not maintainable as he has got no interest over the property which is covered under the Will in question.

4. From perusal of the impugned order and also the

Patna High Court CWJC No.14316 of 2015 (3) dt.02-12-2015 statements made in the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it appears that the petitioner is only claiming that he is a pujari performing puja-path of the deity in the temple situated on the property covered under the Will. According to the petitioner, the adopted daughter of the testator had allowed the petitioner to perform puja-path. Subsequently the said testator disentitled the adopted daughter and Will has been executed in favour of nephew. It further appears that the adopted daughter Dr. Shampa Sinha is also cited in the probate application. The probate application is annexure to this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. So far submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner has got vital information regarding forgery in execution of the Will is concerned, it may be submitted that since the petitioner is only pujari, he is no interest at all in the property and, therefore, the court below has rightly rejected his caveat. Thus, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed at this stage of admission. Consequently the interlocutory application is also rejected.

Harish/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U