Judgment : B.Prakash Rao Heard both the learned counsel. The application C.M.A.M.P.No.188 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, who are third parties to the main appeal, namely Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and Rama Krishna Mutt, as proposed parties, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {"CPC" for brevity}, to grant leave to implead them in C.M.A.No.830 of 2006. In another application, C.M.A.M.P.No.1160 of 2010, same petitioners invoking Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 {"the Act" for brevity}, sought to revoke the orders of this Court in C.M.A.No.830 of 2006 dated 21.06.2007 granting probate. Whereas, in the third application in C.M.A.M.P.No.1161 of 2010 filed under Section 151 CPC sought direction to the respondents 1 to 3 and their transferees in title not to further alienate or create any third party interest in the land admeasuring Acs.10.37 gts in R.S.Nos.170/1 and 172 of Tumkunta Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above Revocation Petition. The main appeal in C.M.A.No.830 of 2006 arose out of an order in O.P.No.1033 of 2002 dated 06.06.2006 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, which was filed, inter alia, seeking for grant of probate for the Will dated 19.07.2001 alleged to have executed by late Sri D.B.Parthasarathi. This Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence and material on record afresh, came to the conclusion that the said Will dated 19.07.2001-Ex.A1 should have been granted probate. Differing with the Court below, it was found that there are strong reasons not to accept the conclusion of the trial Court in rejecting the probate. Hence, allowing the appeal, this Court granted the probate in favour of the appellants therein. It is only thereafter; the above mentioned applications have been filed by the petitioners, who are responsible to religious institutions. They claim that in pursuance of the Wills in question, certain properties have been bequeathed in their favour by the deceased late Sri D.B.Parthasarathi and in spite of the fact that the parties to these proceedings in O.P.No.1033 of 2002 were aware of the same, yet they were not impleaded and therefore, the said proceedings being behind their back without any notice and opportunity and question of grant of probate does not arise. Necessarily, the petitioners' claims require to be considered on merits, whereas no such exercise was done on these claims. Hence, they sought for revocation of the orders purportedly under Section 263 of the Act, as it affects their right and title. For convenience sake, both the provisions, Sections 276 and 263 are extracted, which read as under. 276. Petition for probate:- (1) Application for probate or for letters of administration, with the Will annexed, shall be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in the language in ordinary use in proceedings before the Court in which the application is made, with the Will or, in the cases mentioned in sections 237, 238 and 239, a copy, draft, or statement of the contents thereof, annexed, and stating- (a) the time of the testator's death, (b) that the writing annexed in his last Will and testament, (c) that it was duly executed, (d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner's hands, and (e) when the application is for probate, that the petitioner is the executor named in the Will. (2) In addition to these particulars, the petition shall further state:- (a) when the application is to the District Judge, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode, or had some property, situate within the jurisdiction of the Judge; and (b) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of such Delegate. (3) Where the application is to the District Judge and any portion of the assets likely to come to the petitioner's hands is situate in another State, the petition shall further state the amount of such assets in each State and the District Judges within whose jurisdiction such assets are situate. 263. Revocation or annulment for just cause:-The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. 263. Revocation or annulment for just cause:-The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation:- just cause shall be deemed to exist where- (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant wee defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision and on a comparison with Section 276 of the Act, both being on original side, it clearly revocation of any grant of probate in favour of the parties on the ground as mentioned above. Such exercise of power will be only on the original jurisdiction. Necessarily, such application has to be filed only before the original Court itself namely, the District Court, but not otherwise. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submits that since the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the applicants therein and it is only this Court while allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.830 of 2006 granted the probate, therefore, the present application as has been filed and framed seeking for revocation under Section 263 of the Act is perfectly maintained. The petitioners, which are institutions, claiming certain items of property in pursuance of Wills dated 28.07.2000 and 25.07.2001, allegedly by the deceased, Late Captain D.B. Parthasarathy, who died on 07.03.2002, the respondents have filed probate proceedings in O.P.No.1033 of 2002 under Section 213 of the Act in pursuance of Will dated 19.07.2001 and the same was initially dismissed by the Court below. Against the said order, C.M.A.No.803 of 2006 was preferred and this Court allowed the said C.M.A. on 21.06.2007. Against the said order, C.M.A.No.803 of 2006 was preferred and this Court allowed the said C.M.A. on 21.06.2007. Considering the aforesaid plea, it is to be noticed that be it grant of probate, or even for revocation of any such grant of probate subsequently, both these proceedings are of original nature and therefore, necessarily, it has to be filed only before the original Court, which has jurisdiction but not an appellate Court. Merely because, the Court below dismissed the other petition under Section 276 of the Act, and this Court reversed the same by allowing the grant of probate, it does not amount to grant by this Court or appellate Court. Further, this Court was only exercising the appellate power under Section 229 of the Act by entertaining the said appeals, and allowing. It is now well established that exercise of powers by the appellate Court is only an extension of the powers as exist with the original Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellate Court exercises any original jurisdiction to entertain any such application either for grant of probate or for revocation thereof directly. Therefore, it amounts to the grant of probate by the Court having original jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the present applications, as sought to be filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 263 of the Act and admittedly, the petitioners having already filed a comprehensive suit for declaration and other ancillary reliefs in O.S.No.147 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the same is being pending. Since according to the petitioners, there were not having knowledge about these proceedings, hence, they had to file a suit for comprehensive relief of declaration and other reliefs. However, it has been contended out that the grant of probate in O.P.No.1033 of 2002 and the same having become final in C.M.A.No.830 of 2006, hence, how all such claims at the instance of the petitioner cannot be gone into without a comprehensive approach and enquiry. Either way the present applications are not only maintainable in law but also cannot be justified. Either way the present applications are not only maintainable in law but also cannot be justified. We make it clear that apart from the fact that the said suit was filed earlier and the Court below granted interim injunction in I.A.No.572 of 2007 on 15.02.2007, even though the petitioners are not parties to the said probate proceedings in O.P.No.1033 of 2002, having regard to the independent and original remedy available to them under Section 263 of the Act, for approaching the Court below itself for revocation of the probate granted in favour of the respondents, we do not find any justification to entertain the application and to go into all these questions on merits either way. With liberty to the petitioners herein to approach the Court below and avail the said remedy available to them under the aforesaid provision for revocation and on such filing, the said proceedings to be, clubbed and disposed of along with O.S.No.147 of 2007 on merits, uninfluenced by any of the findings or observations made in the grant of probate at the instance of the respondents by this Court, after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides on merits and in accordance with law. Both the parties to lead and substantiate by any fresh evidence or material. Subject to the above, all the three applications are disposed of. No costs.