Judgment S. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these revisions relate to probate proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act) therefore, they are proposed to be decided by a common order. ( 2 ) IN view of the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act delay in filing Revision No. 215 of 1997 (defect) is condoned. As order dated September 24, 1994 is in the nature of procedural direction, it does not call for any interference. ( 3 ) THE learned District Judge, Jaipur City passed following order on November 16, 1996 (English translation) :"counsel for the parties present. As it is a contested matter, it be registered like a suit. Court-fee be deposited as per directions. The case be listed on December 21, 1996 for production of documents and for framing of the issues. " ( 4 ) ASSAILING the aforesaid order, Mr. Arvind Kulhar learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously canvassed that the learned Court below did not properly appreciate the provisions contained in the Act. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. J. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner supported the order and cited various pronouncements. ( 6 ) I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the order of the learned Judge which runs in four lines only. It appears that the learned Court below has passed the order mechanically without applying its judicial mind. The manner in which the learned Judge has passed the impugned order, amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in him. The orders which involve interpretation of the provisions of law should not be passed in a slipsho manner. ( 7 ) THUS the learned Court below, in my considered opinion, has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order and if it is allowed to stand failure of justice would be occasioned. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, Revision No. 236 of 1997 succeeds and is hereby allowed. The learned District Judge, Jaipur City is directed to decide the following points.- (A) Under what circumstances the probate proceedings can be registered as a suit? (b) Which provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 are attracted in the instant case? (c) What is the amount of Court-fee, required to be deposited by the petitioner? The learned District Judge, Jaipur City is directed to decide the following points.- (A) Under what circumstances the probate proceedings can be registered as a suit? (b) Which provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 are attracted in the instant case? (c) What is the amount of Court-fee, required to be deposited by the petitioner? the learned District Judge is expected to pass a well reasoned order this time. The impugned order dated November 16, 1996 (December 16, 1996) stands set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on May 26, 1997. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with, I may also like to observe for abundant caution that order sheets in the case files should be drawn carefully by the Presiding Officers of the Courts. A look at the certified copy of the order sheet dated Sept. , 7, 1996 demonstrates that case was adjourned to November 16, 1996. But instead of drawing order sheet on November 16, 1996, the order sheet dated December 16, 1996 was drawn and the case was adjourned to December 21, 1996. The order, bearing date December 16, 1996 was challenged before me whereas it was passed on November 16, 1996 and certified copy of the order was signed by the in-charge of Copying Department on November 29, 1996 as is evident from the certified copy itself. Therefore, I have no option except to mention both the dates of the impugned order. Revision allowed.