JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Challenging the Order Dated 16.9.2002 passed by the Learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, at Balasore in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 arising out of Misc. (probate) Case No. 11 of 1988 rejecting the prayer for revocation & annulment of the ex parte order of probate granted by it on 23.7.1992. 2. The facts, as narrated in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows: Respondent No. 3 being a minor represented through his father Respondent No. 2 filed Probate Misc. Case No. 11 (P) of 1988 before the District Judge, Balasore u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") praying for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 11.4.1988 executed by one Sabitri Mishra wife of Harinarayan Mishra. Sabitri is the mother of the present Appellants & Respondents 1 & 2. In other wards, the present Appellants & Respondent Nos. 1 are three daughters & Respondent No. 2 is the son of said Sabitri. In the said probate proceeding, the present Appellants were Opposite Parties. At the time of filing of the probate misc. case, the present Appellant No. 2 was a minor & notice of the proceeding was not served on the Appellants. However, Respondent No. 2 managed to make the notice sufficient & behind the back of the Appellants get an ex parte order on 23.7.1992 & the probate was made ready on 15.5.1993. The Appellants were aware about the said order on 24.11.1997 when they came to Balasore. Thereafter, they obtained a certified copy of the ex parte Order Dated 23.7.1992 & filed a petition for revocation of the probate & recall of the ex parte order. Their specific plea was that Sabitri was suffering from high blood, pressure & other ailments. Respondent No. 2 being the only son of Sabitri managed to execute the Will on 11.4.1988 in favour of his sen. Sabitri being an illiterate & rustic village lady, Respondent No. 2 influenced her to execute the said Will behind the back of the present Appellants. Thereafter, he filed the probate proceeding, made the notice sufficient on the Appellants by adopting fraudulent method & got the ex parte order. At that time Appellant No. 2 was minor. Sabitri being an illiterate & rustic village lady, Respondent No. 2 influenced her to execute the said Will behind the back of the present Appellants. Thereafter, he filed the probate proceeding, made the notice sufficient on the Appellants by adopting fraudulent method & got the ex parte order. At that time Appellant No. 2 was minor. In support of their case, the Appellants produced the School Admission Register wherein the date of birth of Appellant No. 2 has been reflected as 20th March, 1973. Therefore, at the time of filing of the probate proceeding, she was only 15 years old but her age was shown as 19 years. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed their objection denying the allegations made by the present Appellants in their application & stating that the Will in question executed by Sabitri was a free & voluntary act. During the lifetime of Harinarayan & Sabitri, out of their own volition, the said Will was executed by Sabitri. The property belongs to Sabitri exclusively. In the said Will, Respondent No. 1 who is the elder daughter of Sabitri & the sister of the present Appellants were witnesses & the present Appellants were also aware about the said facts. They did not oppose to the said Will. Therefore, the Will was probated. Even though notice was issued to the present Appellants & the same was made sufficient on them, they did not appear. Therefore, an ex parte order was passed on 23.7.1992. Thereafter, the property was recorded in the name of the executors & the rent is being paid thereof. Thereafter the present Appellants filed Probate Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 only to harass Respondents 2 & 3. On the above pleadings, the Learned District Judge formulated two points to be decided in the said case which are as follows: i. Whether the Petitioner No. 2 was a minor by the time of institution of the Probate Misc. case? & ii. Whether even though summons were not served upon the Petitioners, the same were fraudulently managed to have been served. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas. The present Appellants examined themselves as P.Ws.2 & 1 respectively & filed documentary evidence i.e. School leaving certificate, application for inspection of record & mark sheet as Exts.1 to 3 respectively. Respondents examined three witnesses. Respondent No. 2 was examined as OPW1. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas. The present Appellants examined themselves as P.Ws.2 & 1 respectively & filed documentary evidence i.e. School leaving certificate, application for inspection of record & mark sheet as Exts.1 to 3 respectively. Respondents examined three witnesses. Respondent No. 2 was examined as OPW1. He produced documentary evidence marked as Exts.A to E which are the notice issued to Harinarayan Mishra & Jayantimani, notice served on the public place of village Rasalpur, notice served on residential place of Sabitri Mishra, notice on Sumati Mishra & Horoscope of Jayanti Mishra. 4. After analysing the materials on record, the Learned District Judge came to the finding that the age of Jayantimani, Appellant No. 2 was more than 18 years at the time of filing of the probate misc. case & notice was served on her. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants produced the School Admission Register where the date of birth of Appellant No. 2 has been written as 20th March, 1973. Therefore, at the time of filing of the probate proceeding in the year 1988 she was a minor. The School Admission Register is an admissible evidence. In support of his contention he cited the decision reported in Anadi Mohon Ghose and Others Vs. Rabindra Nath Dutta and Others, He also cited some other decisions which are not necessary to be mentioned since those decisions are not relevant to the facts of the present case as there is no doubt about the position of law which has been held in the said decisions. However, he further submitted that issuance of summons in both by way of personal service under Order 5 Rule 1 of the CPC & by registered post which is the simultaneous service under Order 5 Rule 19A of the Civil Procedure Code. If the Court has not specifically directed for issuance of summons by registered post & has not recorded any reason why issuance of summons for service by registered post is unnecessary, the service of notice cannot be said to be valid in such a situation. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of this Court in 83 (1997) CLT 599 (Shreedhar Das v. Saudamini Panda and Ors). 6. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of this Court in 83 (1997) CLT 599 (Shreedhar Das v. Saudamini Panda and Ors). 6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order & submitted that the Learned District Judge has rightly passed the impugned order which should not be interfered with by this Court. 7. From the aforesaid submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties & on perusal of the records, it appears that Harinarayan Mishra, the father of the Appellants, was impleaded as an Opposite Party in the application for revocation of probate & his name was deleted after his death on 6.4.2000. The specific case of the present Respondents is that notice was issued to the present Appellants & the same was made sufficient as per the evidence of OPW No. 3, the process-server who had affixed the copy of the notice in the village chhaka of Rasalpur which is also the village of the present Appellants. The copy of the said notice was marked as Ext.B. The signature of the process server was marked as Ext.B/l. He was a witness to the said service of notice & he served the same personally on Appellant No. 2. Notice was marked as Ext.A where Appellant No. 2 put her signature & the notice was shown to her. She did not object to the said signature to be her. In the absence of such objection to the said signature in Ext.A the evidence of Appellant No. 2 it cannot be held that notice was not served on her. Further it appears from the record that Harinarayan the father of the Appellants identified Appellant No. 1 to the process server. After receiving notice, Appellant No. 1 put her signature on it. OPW No. 2 had proved the said fact. Appellants challenged the evidence on the ground that OPW. No. 2 is a close relation of Respondent No. 2 being a cousin brother. However, he is also a brother of the present Appellants. Without any enmity between the Appellants & the said witness, it cannot be accepted that he would depose only in favour of the Respondents. Further it appears from the records that Appellant No. 2-Jayantimani married in the year 1989 at the age of 18 years as stated by her while she herself had been examined as P.W.1. Without any enmity between the Appellants & the said witness, it cannot be accepted that he would depose only in favour of the Respondents. Further it appears from the records that Appellant No. 2-Jayantimani married in the year 1989 at the age of 18 years as stated by her while she herself had been examined as P.W.1. In view of the statement made by her in Court, it can be concluded that she was born in the year 1971. The father of the Appellants was impleaded as Opposite Party to the misc. case for revocation of probate order & he was also a witness to the notice served on the present Appellants. The Appellants had no allegation that their father wanted to deprive them of the property. Therefore, the plea of the Appellants that notice was not made sufficient on them & a probate order had been obtained behind their back is not acceptable. Though the School Admission Register is an admissible evidence, it is not the conclusive evidence in case there is rebuttal evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, the Learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the date of birth as reveals from the School Admission Register is not to be accepted as correct in view of the rebuttal evidence on record. That apart, in the probate proceeding the persons impleaded as Opposite Parties were expected to oppose the said proceeding & the proceeding was not a regular suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Opposite Parties in a probate proceedings are Defendants & an ex parte order was passed against them. Since before granting probate of the Will the persons arrayed as Opposite Parties in the proceeding did not oppose to the grant of probate, the probate order was passed. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination it can be said that in the probate proceeding the order was passed ex parte in the absence of opposition to the said probate even though notice was made sufficient on the parties. 8. Since this Court is of the considered view that the Learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion & there is no infirmity or illegality in the said finding, the impugned Order Dated 16.9.2002 passed by the Learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, at Balasore in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 arising out of Misc. (probate) Case No. 11 of 1988 is confirmed. Case No. 1 of 1998 arising out of Misc. (probate) Case No. 11 of 1988 is confirmed. 9. In the result, the First Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed