This petition in revision is directed against the order dated 7.12.1987 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura whereby the petitioners' application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereafter referred as the 'Code' was rejected. 2. The petitioners had filed Title Suit No. 229 of 1985 in the Court of Munsiff for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of 'land' in suit. The opposite-party herein the defend­ant had resisted the suit on grounds, inter alia, that the predecessor-in-interests of the petitioners had executed a Will in the year 1977 and bequeathed the land in suit to him. The defendant thereafter filed an application for probate of the 'Will' which was Misc (Probate) 7/86, in which the present petitioners were made parties. The petition­ers filed an application under section 10 of the Code for stay of the probate proceeding which was opposed by the .opposite party. The petitioners also raised the plea that the probate application was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge by order dated7.12.87impugned in this petition, held that the probate proceeding not being a suit and the Court of Munsiff not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter raised in the probate proceeding provisions of section 10 of the Code were not attracted. It was also held that the probate application was not barred by limitation. In the result, the application was rejected. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this Court and Shri D.Das, learned counsel appearing on their behalf has submitted that the matter in dispute between the parties essentially was the 'Will' set up by the opposite-party and since the suit was filed earlier, the probate proceeding should have been stayed and in any case the probate proceeding should by stayed in exercise of inherent powers under section 151 of the Code, Shri Das also submitted that this Court should also go into the question of limitation, decided by the learned District Judge, 4. Shri M.C.Deb Roy, learned counsel for the opposite-party has submitted section 10 of the Code could not be invoked and since the District Judge in a probate matter exercised special jurisdiction the question of stay of probate proceeding therefore did not arise. 5. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the materials on record. 6. Shri M.C.Deb Roy, learned counsel for the opposite-party has submitted section 10 of the Code could not be invoked and since the District Judge in a probate matter exercised special jurisdiction the question of stay of probate proceeding therefore did not arise. 5. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the materials on record. 6. In so far as the submission of Shri B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners regarding limitation is concerned, I do not consider it necessary to decide it at this stage, for it shall be open to the petitioners to raise the plea, later if necessary. 7. As regards the prayer for stay of probate proceeding is concer­ned, the view taken by the learned District Judge that the provisions of section 10 of the Code were not attracted was sound for the reasons that in probate matter the District Judge exercises a special jurisdiction which the learned Munsiff just does not possess and consequently properly speaking the provision of section 10 of the Code could not be invoked. 8. Shri B.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the inherent powers of the Court under section 151 of Code should be invoked to stay the probate proceeding which were instituted later. In my opinion, when stay of a proceeding or suit is considered in exercise of inherent powers under section 151 of the Code, the fact that suit was instituted earlier, should not be a very material consideration, for the basic essential consideration, they should be the interests of justice to the parties and the proceeding or suit even though instituted earlier may be stayed, if considered proper and necessary. The question therefore is whether there should be stay of the probate proceeding or the suit and if so which of the two. 9. The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Lalit Mohan Sarkar who, in Title Suit No.229 of 1985, as such have claimed right and title to the property in suit. The opposite party herein claimed right and title to the land in suit under the 'Will' said to have been executed in early part of the year 1977 by said late. Lalit Mohan Sarkar. The opposite party herein claimed right and title to the land in suit under the 'Will' said to have been executed in early part of the year 1977 by said late. Lalit Mohan Sarkar. The main question to be decided in the suit therefore be whether late Lilit Mohan Sarkar had executed the 'Will' and so also in the probate proceeding the main question would be that whether 'Will' had been executed by late Lalit Mohan Sarkar. Considering that in the Title Suit No. 229/S5 and the 'probate proceeding' both the main question is that whether the said Will was executed or not, I think it shall be in the interest of justice for the parties and hence proper that one should be stayed in exercise of the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code. Since the jurisdiction in probate matter is exclusively with the learned District Judge and the proceeding shall be confined to the said question only, I think it shall be proper to let probate proceeding continue and further proceeding in Title Suit No.229 of 1985 should be stayed as was also directed by this Court in its interim order dated 28.4.88 in Misc. Case No.38 of 1988. I, therefore order accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs. The learned District Judge, West Tripura shall try expeditiously to decide the probate case.