JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - An application for grant of letters of administration was made in the Court of District Judge. Cuttack which was registered as a Miscellaneous case. On 30th July, 1987, near relations of the deceased as mentioned in the petition entered appearance and filed a memorandum through their Advocate that they have no objection for the grant of probate in favour of the Petitioner. Thereupon, the petition was admitted on 3 8-1987. Fixing 18-9-1987 for hearing, learned. District Judge directed to issue notice to Defendants for appearance on that date. Requisites having been filed for issue of citations, Process Server affixed notices on the front door of the residence of the deceased at Ramgarh, in the Notice Boards of the District Judge. First Munsif and Collector. Collector, Cuttack was also issued notice for giving a report as the valuation of the assets as mentioned in the petition whose copy was enclosed to the notice. On 18-9-1987, learned District Judge was satisfied that general notice and citations were received after publication. However, the Misc. case was posted to 20th October, 1987 for the Petitioner to prove service and awaiting the valuation report from the Collector. Learned District Judge transferred the case to the Court of the First Sub-judge, Cuttack for disposal in accordance with law since he was the District delegate. On 3-11-1987, learned Subordinate Judge fixed the Misc. case to 26-11-1987 for being. On 26-11-1987, learned Sub-judge posted the Misc. case for bearing one after the other date till 20-4-1988. Valuation report having been received in the meantime, on 20th April, 1988, the matter was fixed to 11.5-1988 for bearing on valuation report. On 11-5-1988, valuation report given by the Collector was accepted. However, on 22-6-1988. the case was posted to 18-7-1988 for hearing on valuation matter. Without bearing on valuation matter on 18-7-1988, learned Subordinate Judge directed to call the case on 19-8-1988 for hearing. On 19-8-1988. applicant was present with his witness. Petitioner filed an application for being permitted to intervenes by being impleaded as a party which was resisted by the applicant. However, applicant was given time to file objection to the petition for prervention. On 22-8-1988, applicant filed objection to the petition for intervention. Rejoinder was also filed by the Petitioner on the next date and the matter was fixed to 13-9-1988 for hearing. However, applicant was given time to file objection to the petition for prervention. On 22-8-1988, applicant filed objection to the petition for intervention. Rejoinder was also filed by the Petitioner on the next date and the matter was fixed to 13-9-1988 for hearing. For three continuous dates Petitioner prayed for adjournment and the matter was posted to 7-2-1989 for hearing. That day also, Petitioner filed application for adjournment on account of illness but the same was rejected and the application for intervention was also rejected. On the next day, Petitioner filed an application to recall the order and on 9-2-1989, to Which date the misc. case was posted for hearing, order was recalled. Petition for intervention was heard and was posted to 28-2-1989 for orders. On 28-2-1989, Petitioner filed some documents and the case was posted to 8-3-1989 for orders. Impugned order having been passed that day rejecting the petition for intervention and posting the matter to 3-4-1989 for hearing, this Civil Revision has been filed. On 3-4-1989, the Misc. Case has been posted to 4-7-1989 for hearing. 2. The Will sought to be probated in the present case is alleged to be the last Will of late Hare Krushna Mahatab executed on 4-6-1960. On the death of the testator on 2-1-1987. petition has been filed on 18-7-1987. Late Mahatab was conferred degree to be called Dr. Hare Krushna Mahatab which gives an idea about his learning. From the records, it is seen that he was Governor of a State which indicates his eminence. In the Will he expressed to have bequeathed all his properties without giving details of such properties. In the petition for letters of administration specific properties have been listed in respect of which letter of administration is prayed for. One item of property at Cuttack has been the cause for intervention by the Petitioner. 3. It is the discretion of the District- Judge to issue citation as provided u/s 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calling upon persons claiming interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceeding. Under Sub-section (2) citation is to be fixed up, in some conspicuous place of the Court Hall and also in the office of the Collector of the District and otherwise published as directed by the District Judge. Under Sub-section (2) citation is to be fixed up, in some conspicuous place of the Court Hall and also in the office of the Collector of the District and otherwise published as directed by the District Judge. Section 284 provides that caveats may be lodged by any person with the District Judge in the form as early as possible as given in the schedule. Section 295 provides that no proceeding shall be taken in respect of the petition for probate or letters of administration after a caveat against the grant thereof has been entered. On the caveator entering appearance, the application for probate or Letter of administration is to be treated to be a regular suit in which the applicant shall be the Plaintiff and the person who has appeared to oppose the application shall be the Defendant as is provided in Section 295 of the Act. 4. As I find, provisions of the Act have been followed more in not following the object of the same. When the learned District Judge considered the question of issue of notice on 3-8-1987. he did not take into consideration whether citations are to be issued. He only directed issue of notice to the Defendants on that date. Office, however, thought that citations are to be issued and the Process Server was entrusted with the service of notice. No objection can be taken for the Process server fixing the notice on the front door of the deceased, although, the District Judge should have passed a specific order to that effect to be the manner of publication of the citation. A Process Server has no control over the notice boards either of the District Judge or of the First Munsif or of the Collector. It is not known how the Process. Server could fix the notice in these Notice Boards. Process-server ought to have handed over the notices to the Officer-in-charge of the Notice Boards and reported the fact and these officers should have' reported that they have caused the notice published being affixed in the Notice Boards. When caveates, though called for were not filed, a specific order should have been passed that there being no contention on or before the date fixed, the proceeding is not required to be disposed of as a suit. When caveates, though called for were not filed, a specific order should have been passed that there being no contention on or before the date fixed, the proceeding is not required to be disposed of as a suit. The petition for grant of letters of administration would indicate that the properties listed are in districts of Cuttack, Balasore and Puri. It is not known how the Collector, Cuttack alone could report with regard to valuation of assets in all the districts. Rightly, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the proceeding for' hearing on the question of a report of valuation. However, the order sheet reveals that the learned Subordinate Judge has not applied his mind thereafter. On some date, he accepted the valuation report and another subsequent dates he fixed the proceeding to be heard on the question of valuation of report. 5. Learned District Judge fixed the case to 18-9-1987 for hearing and in the citation issued invitation was given to persons to appear on that date and see the proceeding for grant of probate or letters of administration. For long one year, Petitioner did not appear and on 19.8.1988 only he entered appearance when hearing was to commence. He ought to have brought to the notice of the Court that the having entered appearance, the proceeding was to be conducted as a suit. Since issues were not settled, he ought to have requested for settlement of issues since Petitioner having appeared that date and the witnesses being present, in his presence, the proceeding ought to have continued as a suit. With appearance, Petitioner ought to have filed his objection on the basis of which the issues could have been settled, All these steps could have been taken that day and the evidence of the witnesses could have been recorded also. There was no necessity for him to apply to be impleaded as a party to intervene in the matter. judgment in a probate proceeding is a judgment in rem. Accordingly, any person who has appeared can see the proceeding. Seeing the proceeding would include raising objection and for that purpose cross-examining the witnesses also. He can also examine witnesses. In this case, Petitioner wanted to contest the grant of letters of administration in respect of one item of the property situated at Cuttack claiming that the same does not belong to the testator. 6. Mr. Seeing the proceeding would include raising objection and for that purpose cross-examining the witnesses also. He can also examine witnesses. In this case, Petitioner wanted to contest the grant of letters of administration in respect of one item of the property situated at Cuttack claiming that the same does not belong to the testator. 6. Mr. Ashok Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the objection to the grant of letters of administration as revealed from the petition would indicate that Petitioner was not challenging the genuineness of the Writ which is the only question to be decided in a probate proceeding, which according to Mr. Mukherjee, relying upon a decision reported in Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Sm. Kamta Devi and Others, is not a consideration for grant of probate by the Court the consideration being limited to the genuineness of the Will only. Since I was of the prima facie view that probate was to be granted in respect of property and Mr. Mukherjee submitted that such a question as raised by the Petitioner is immaterial I suggested that in case, the specification of the property is immaterial Petitioner may file an affidavit to exclude the list of properties by indicating only the valuation of the assets as required u/s 276(l)(d) of the Act and defined the proceeding till to day. Affidavit of the Petitioner has been filed today where it is asserted that Petitioner was informed by his Advocate Biswakavi Das that the arguing counsel was required to ascertain from the Petitioner if he was prepared to delete the entire list of properties mentioned and in case, he is agreeable the application of the Petitioner would be rejected. In the affidavit it was stated that it is not legally permissible. Mr. Biswakavi Dash is not present in Court today to ascertain from him if an affidavit was required where the list of properties is not intended to be deleted. Petitioner could have discussed the matter with Mr. Mukherjee who was the arguing counsel on the previous date and today also. Mr. Mukherjee submitted in Court today that he also understood likewise. I can only mention that Petitioner was not correctly intimated' to file an affidavit. No affidavit was required if deletion of the list was not intended. Since Mr. Petitioner could have discussed the matter with Mr. Mukherjee who was the arguing counsel on the previous date and today also. Mr. Mukherjee submitted in Court today that he also understood likewise. I can only mention that Petitioner was not correctly intimated' to file an affidavit. No affidavit was required if deletion of the list was not intended. Since Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the only question to be considered by a probate court was the genuineness of the Will gave him opportunity to enquire from the Petitioner if he is prepared to delete the list so that there would be no grievance of the Petitioner any further and his petition can safely be rejected. Since the Petitioner was not inclined to delete the list as reflected in the affidavit there was no necessity for filing the same. Filing of such an affidavit leads me to draw an inference that for purpose undisclosed, the same has been tiled which was not required by me. 7. As I have already indicated the Will sought to be probated is contended to be the last Will of an eminent person of Orissa, where detail is of the property sought to be quashed have not been given. In case, the applicant opposite party claims that in the last Will the deceased intended to bequeath the Cuttack property as included in the list of properties and it is found by the Court that such property does not belong to the testator, the genuineness of the Will may in some circumstances became doubtful, since an eminent person of the position of late Mahatab both in learning and status in the society could not have intended to bequeath property belonging to others. This question is also closely connected with the genuineness of the Will. If it is explained by the Petitioner that Late Mahatab was always treating the Cuttack property to be his own without knowing the legal implications of transfer of title and if at all it is found that the property does not belong to him, the question may be considered in a different angle. In any case, it cannot be said that the question relating to the ownership of Cuttack property of late Mahatab included in the Will while considering the application for grant of probate is irrelevant in this case. 8. In any case, it cannot be said that the question relating to the ownership of Cuttack property of late Mahatab included in the Will while considering the application for grant of probate is irrelevant in this case. 8. As I have discussed earlier, Petitioner has entered appearance long after the expiry of the date fixed in the notice for citation. He has taken sufficient adjournment in the case which resulted in a prolonged litigation. Applicant-opposite party cannot establish his right as executor or legacy in respect of the properties in any court until a letter of administration is granted in his favour as provided under Sections 213 and 214 of the Act. Expeditious disposal was in the circumstances necessary to give authority, to the applicant opposite party for establishing his right in respect of the property as an executor, if any dispute arises at any time. This has been delayed on account of the application of the Petitioner which was misconceived. Applicant opposite party having been prejudiced on account of prolonged litigation for which he had no contribution, since he was always ready with witnesses to contest' the proceeding, Petitioner is to mitigate the prejudice by payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party within 15 days from today. On payment of the costs, he shall be permitted to file his objection whereupon, issues shall be settled and the same shall be disposed of as a suit. Since I find from record that one of the arrestors to the Will who has signed the petition is aged about 83 years the proceeding should be concluded at an early date preferably by end of November, 1989. 9. In the result, subject to the aforesaid directions, the Civil Revision is allowed. I make it clear that no observation in this order shall in any manner be utilised to prejudice the rights of any of the parties and the proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with law. No costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed