R. P. MOOKERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal on behalf of an executor against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Howrah, direoting him to file an inventory and accounts. ( 2 ) SRINIBASH Das, the testator, died leaving a widow, Sabitri and 3 minor sons, Prosad, Shiv Chandra and Tarapada. By his will he had appointed his two brothers Asutosh and Santiram as executors and after the death of the testator the litter applied for grant of probate which was actually directed to be issued on 9-5-1925. On 6-6-1926, Sabitri, the widow of the testator started revocation proceedings on various grounds which were ultimately disposed of on 13-11-1926, on agreed terms, the probate which had been issued being maintained. The properties left by the testator Srinibash were mainly held jointly with his other three brothers, Asutosh, Santiram and Kantiram. It is stated that the executors, appointed by the Court, did not file either an inventory or accounts within one year as required both under Section 817, Succession Act and the Probate was issued. ( 3 ) ON 28-11-1946, an application was filed by Prosad the eldest son of the testator against Santiram, the surviving executor the other executor Asutosh having died about 1936. Prosad prayed before the Probate Court, for being put in possession of the properties left by his father and for a direction on the executor to render accounts upto-date and bring in Court the amount lying with him. Santiram, the executor filed an objection on 28-6-1947, contesting the prayers made on the merits as also on grounds of jurisdiction, On 3-4-l948, this application came up before the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Howrah for final hearing when the pleader for the petitioners stated that be would not press the prayer for making over possession of the property. Hence the only question for consideration was as to the rendering of accounts by the executor. ( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge without giving any opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence directed the executor to submit an upto-date account as also an inventory within a month. Hence the only question for consideration was as to the rendering of accounts by the executor. ( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge without giving any opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence directed the executor to submit an upto-date account as also an inventory within a month. ( 5 ) THE present appeal is on behalf of Santiram the executor and it is urged that after the probate had been directed to be issued in 1925 and the revocation proceedings disposed of on agreed terms in 1926, Santiratn, the executor appellant left for' Burma and it is alleged that he had remained in Burma until his return in September 1945. He was, therefore, neither concerned with the management of the Estate nor was it possible for him to render accounts for the period he had been away. Moreover it is alleged that Asut03h, who remained in India, was in charge of the management until such time when Prosad, the eldest son of the testator attaired majority near about 1934. It is claimed that Prosad had been managing his father's properties ever since and be could nob demand the submission of accounts from either of the executors far less from Santiram who had all along been away to Burma. It is pointed out that the executor appellant had not been given sufficient opportunity to prove the facts alleged by him about his absence from India to Burma and also about his non-participation in the management of the Estate left by Srinibash. ( 6 ) BUT it is in the first instance to be considered whether the exeoutor who had failed to file an inventory and accounts ever since the issue of the probate, can be heard to plead his inability to manage the Estate or that he was not concerned with the property at all. This question is one of first impression. ( 7 ) IN our opinion the Court has to consider in the first instance whether the administration by the executor is still continuing. The present application is before a Probate Court, purporting to be under Section 317 of I. Section Act. Unless the administration be still in force it is not possible to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, though. The present application is before a Probate Court, purporting to be under Section 317 of I. Section Act. Unless the administration be still in force it is not possible to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, though. it may be open to the person interested to apply before the competent Court either for rendition of accounts or for any other relief if such proceedings are not barred by lapse of time Nabachundra v. Tripura Charan, 2 C. W. N. 597, Banerjee J. notices this point but no decision is given. See also Sankarnath v. Biddutlata, 28 C. L. J. 271 at p. 274. The summary procedure laid down in Section 317 can be available only if the administration was continuing and the opposite party was still functioning as an executor. Reference in this connection may be made to the observation in Mt. Kulwanta v. Karamchand 43 o. W. N. 4, that the power of an administrator does not last after the administration has been oompleted whereupon the grant would stand revoked in effect, if not by a formal order of the Court. The principle applicable in the present case would be the same on which the Court refuses to make a grant if there is reason to believe that the estate has been fully administered, Lalit Chandra v. Baikunthanath 14 C. W. N. 463, Prasanno Kumari v. Ramachandra, 17 C. L. J. 66. When an allegation is made by an executor that the properties had already been taken charge of by the legatee and nothing is being administered by the executors the truth or otherwise of that allegation must in the first instance be gone into, the parties being allowed to give evidence in support of the respective allegations If it is found that the executors had not been administering the estate of the deceased testator the application made under Section 317 stands to be dismissed in limine. ( 8 ) THE other allegations made by the executor also require scrutiny. It is claimed by Santiram that after the probate had been directed to be issued in 1925 he left for Burma the next year and that Prosad has been in possession of his father's share in the estate ever since he attained majority in 1934. Asutosh died in 1936 and the appellant alleges he had no concern with the estate after his return, in 1945. Asutosh died in 1936 and the appellant alleges he had no concern with the estate after his return, in 1945. If the estate is still being administered by the executors there is no doubt that the Court has jurisdiction not only as to entertain an application or to require the executor to, file an inventory and aocounts. Section 317 of the Act imposes a statutory obligation on all executors and administrators to exhibit an inventory and accounts. Non-filing of the inventory and aocounts leads to three consequenoes (1) the executor makes himself liable to punishment under Section 176, Penal Code, if the requirements of sub Section (3) are fulfilled, (2) subjects himself at the instance of an interested party to an administration suit and (3) the grant is liable to be revoked if the provisions of explanation (e) to section 263 are satisfied.