JUDGMENT 1. - These two revision petitions filed by the objector/non-applicant No. 2 Smt. Shashi Charan, wife of Ishwar Dan Charan and daughter of late Sh. Gangadan Charan, who is said to have executed a Will in favour of his grand-son, namely, Nachiketa Singh S/o Kishore Kumar Charan. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an application under Section 2.76 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed by said Nachiketa Singh, aged about 9 years, for grant of probate in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner through his mother Smt. Veena Charan W/o Kishore Kumar Charan. Inter alia, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the present petitioner- Smt. Shashi Charan (non-applicant No. 5), before the said Court alleging therein that probate could not be granted in favour of minor in view of Section 223 of the said Act, which stipulates that probate cannot he granted to any person, who is minor or is of unsound mind nor to any association of individuals unless it is a company which satisfies the conditions prescribed by rules to be made by notification in the Official Gazette, by the State Government in this behalf. The objector, therefore, contended that probate cannot be granted in favour of minor. 3. Learned District Judge, Bikaner, however, vide the impugned order dated 20.1.2009 rejected such application filed by the objector-Smt. Shashi Charan under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. while holding that even though probate cannot be granted in favour of minor, letter of administration can be granted to the legal -guardian of such minor under the provisions of Section 244 of the said Act, which provides that when a minor is the sole executor or sole residuary legatee, letters of administration, with the Will annexed, may be granted to the legal guardian of such minor or to such other person, as the Court may think fit until the minor has attained his majority at which period, and not before, probate of the Will shall be granted to him. By the same order, the learned Court below directed that the applicant-Nachiketa Singh may file amendment application substituting "letter of administration" in place of "probate" in the application under Section 276 of the Act, which permits application for probate or for letter of administration with the Will annexed. By the same order, the learned Court below directed that the applicant-Nachiketa Singh may file amendment application substituting "letter of administration" in place of "probate" in the application under Section 276 of the Act, which permits application for probate or for letter of administration with the Will annexed. Accordingly, the applicant filed such application, which came to be allowed and again the non-applicant-Smt. Shashi Charan filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., which later on came to be rejected by another order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner on 3.11.2010. 4. Dissatisfied, two revision petitions have been filed in this Court by Shashi Charan viz. (i) Civil Revision Petition No. 3071/2009 DR(J) challenging the order dated 20.1.2009 and another revision being Civil Revision No. 235/2010 challenging the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the learned District Judge Bikaner. 5. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner-Smt. Shashi Charan vehemently submitted that : (i) that petition under Section 276 of the Act has to be tried and decided as a suit and, therefore, without any amendment application, the Court invoking its suo moto powers could not have directed the applicant to amend his application tinder Section 276 of the Act substituting the word "Letter of Administration" for the word "Probate" and, thus, instead of granting probate, proceed to grant the letter of administration. (ii) that in the order dated 20.1.2009 while the Court came to the conclusion that probate cannot be granted in favour of minor in terms of Section 223 of the Act, such petition deserved to be rejected and the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the present petitioner/non-applicant was required to be allowed. (iii) that the applicant-Nachiketa Singh has filed the said application through his mother Smt. Veena Charan and not through his natural guardian, the father Kishore Kumar Charan and even such application was not maintainable and therefore, the learned Court below has erred in rejecting the non-applicant's application tinder Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. In support of above contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments : 1) Dadu Dayal Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas & Anr., reported in 2008(2) WLC (S) Civil 357 [Head Note-C] 2) Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3753 [Head Note-G]. 6. On the other hand, Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rohitash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- applicant (Nachiketa Singh) submitted that the learned Court below was justified in rejecting both the applications under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. because the application/petition filed under Section 276 of the Act with the Will executed in favour of Nachiketa Singh by his grandfather, namely, late Sh. Gangadan Chaan was properly maintainable and in view of minority of the applicant, even though probate could not be granted in his favour at that time, so long as applicant acquired majority, letter of administration could certainly be granted in favour of his legal guardian, his mother Smt. Veena Charan or any other person in terms of Section 244 of the said Act. Therefore, the learned Court below cannot be said to have erred in invoking its suo moto powers seeking amendment of the application and consequently proceed to grant such letter of administration under Section 276 in favour of minor, represented by his legal guardian, his mother Smt. Veena Charan. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in' view of provisions of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in these revision petitions. It is true that Section 223 of the Act prohibits grant of probate to a minor and the applicant Nachiketa Singh at the time of filing of such application admittedly was 9 years of age but it is undeniable that Section 244 of the same Act permits grant of letter of administration where a minor is sole executor or sole residuary legatee, such letter of administration can be granted to legal guardian of such minor or even to such other person as the Court thinks fit. The purpose of enacting such Section 244 under Chapter 2 is obvious that such letter of administration can be granted to a legal guardian of such minor or to such other person as the Court think it unto the minor attains majority because Section 236 of the Act even prohibits letter of administration to be granted to any person who is a minor or is of unsound mind, which provision is akin to Section 233 of the Act in respect of probate and that is to sub-serve the purpose of maintaining the affairs of the estate or property for the benefit of such minor, beneficiary under the will, so long as or until the point of time, he attains majority. 8. There is no quarrel on the proposition as canvassed by learned counsel that such petition or application under Section 276 has to be tried as a suit, once the objections are raised on behalf of objectors against such grant of probate or letter of administration. However, the legal position is very clear from the bare reading of the provisions of the Act itself that such letter of administration can be granted even to a legal guardian of a minor or to such other person, as the Court may think fit. if such a power is conferred by the Act, and if the Court even without any amendment application by the said minor applicant invokes its suo moto powers for the minor, who of course, filed such application under Section 276 of the Act through his natural and legal guardian his mother Smt. Veena Charan, no fault can be found in the same. This is irrespective of the merit of the objections, which may be raised by such objector against the grant of probate or letter of administration but as far as competence to grant such letter of administration is concerned, the same is undeniable in view of Section 244 of the Act. The purpose of Order 7, Rule 1 1 C.P.C. is to throwout the suits or the petitions to be tried as a civil suit at the threshold if the Court comes to the clear conclusion that such suit is not even maintainable, being barred by law or otherwise ex facie not maintainable. 9. Such is not the case here. The purpose of Order 7, Rule 1 1 C.P.C. is to throwout the suits or the petitions to be tried as a civil suit at the threshold if the Court comes to the clear conclusion that such suit is not even maintainable, being barred by law or otherwise ex facie not maintainable. 9. Such is not the case here. Even if the probate applied for by a minor through his legal guardian, obviously, such probate could not be granted either to minor or to his legal or natural guardian. Since, there is no provision like Section 244 in Chapter I of Part-IX of the Act comprising of Sections 218 to 236 for grant of probate in favour of legal guardian or any other person as the Court thinks fit. But, Section 244 in Chapter II meets such contingency where such application is filed by a minor through legal guardian or natural guardian and that provides that until the point of time the minor attains majority, letter of administration can be granted to such legal guardian or any other person, as the Court thinks fit. 10. Section 244 further provides that letter of administration can be granted until the minor attained majority and not before, probate of the Will shall be granted to him. Since, minority deprives a person of his/her capacity to enter into a valid contract, such a via media as required to be found and that is why the letter of administration is required to be issued in favour of legal guardian. 11. In the light of these reasons, which have been discussed by the learned Court below also in the detailed order dated 3.11.2010, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the non-applicant/objector cannot be said to be valid objections and in the opinion of this Court, the learned Court below was perfectly justified in invoking its suo moto powers to direct the applicant to maintain its application for substituting the prayer for grant of letter of administration in place of probate, which could not be granted until point of time he attained majority. Similarly, there is little force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the presence of the father of the applicant, Nachiketa Singh, his mother, Smt. Veena Charan could not be said to be legal guardian to apply for such letter of administration. Similarly, there is little force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the presence of the father of the applicant, Nachiketa Singh, his mother, Smt. Veena Charan could not be said to be legal guardian to apply for such letter of administration. The contention has to be rejected because firstly, the words used in Section 244 of the Act are not "natural guardian" but "legal guardian", which includes mother also, who is a natural guardian also in the absence of father, which category is further extendable to any other person as the Court thinks fit. Thus, even the third party other than the legal guardian or a parent could also be granted the letter of administration, unless he is disqualified in view of being a minor or a person of unsound mind or association not being incorporated company. 12. In view of this clear language of Section 244, the contention that only the natural guardian/father in preference over mother could maintain such application, is liable to be rejected and same is accordingly rejected. So far as the second application filed under order 7 Rule II C.P.C. before the learned below, which was rejected on 3.11.2010 is concerned, the same is also correct in law and, there is no force in these revision petitions and same are liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.Revisions dismissed. *******