JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant Smt. Manjeet Kaur who has applied for recall of the orders dated 20.3.2012 and 15.5.2013 passed by this Court and Sri J. Nagar, Administrator General, U.P. alongwith Sri Arnab Banerji who appears as his counsel. In respect to the estate of late Sardar Jogendra Singh, former Governor of Rajasthan in Testamentary Case No. 3 of 1979, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court vide order dated 4.2.1981 granted Letters of Administration to the Administrator General. The said order is final and conclusive and in pursuance thereof Administrator General is managing the estate of the deceased. 2. The estate of the deceased broadly consisted of some agricultural land, a bungalow at Steelganj, Bahraich, some valuable items contained in a box and certain bank accounts. After about more than 12 years of management of the estate by the Administrator General, it appears that he offered to surrender the above properties in accordance with Section 52 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 (hereinafter for short the ‘Act’) to the State Government. 3. The Principal Secretary vide letter dated 16th June 2001 accepted to take possession only of the undisputed properties and directed the Administrator General to surrender the same to the District Magistrate, Bahraich. Thereafter, the agricultural land which was part of the estate of the deceased was surrendered to the District Magistrate, Bahraich but the other properties remained under the administration of the Administrator General. It also appears from the record that the then Administrator General by means of a power of attorney had authorized one Naim Khan to manage the properties ie. the bungalow and in respect of the some open land of the bungalow a lease was granted to one Salim Khan. It is said that Salim Khan by virtue of the said lease deed constructed 8 shops which were let out. Subsequently, power of attorney given to Naim Khan was cancelled on 5.5.2000 and so was the lease granted to Salim Khan on 23.5.2000. The request of the aforesaid Naim Khan and Salim Khan to renew the power of attorney or to extend the lease was turned down by the Court in the past. 4. The Administrator General in all fairness under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, moved an application under Section 25 of the Act seeking appropriate direction for administration of the above properties. 4. The Administrator General in all fairness under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, moved an application under Section 25 of the Act seeking appropriate direction for administration of the above properties. The said application was filed before the Bench at Allahabad independent of the Testamentary Case No. 3 of 1979 and was registered as Testamentary Case No. 37 of 2002. 5. It is in these proceedings that on the directions of the Court inventory with regard to items kept in the box was prepared. An effort was made to get the said items preserved and displayed in a museum but it failed whereupon the box with all items was directed to be kept in safe custody of the Registrar General of the Court. 6. As regards the bungalow at Steelganj, Bahraich, this Court vide order dated 31.8.2006 permitted the Administrator General to get it valued so that it may be sold and its value be converted into cash for the purposes of transfer to the State Government in accordance with Section 51 read with Rule 52 of the Rules. Accordingly, directions were issued for its sale. It is in connection with the proceedings for sale of the said bungalow that the above two orders dated 20.3.2013 and 15.5.2013 came to be passed by this Court. 7. The order dated 20.3.2013 notes that the main bungalow situate at Steelganj, Bahraich consists of about 1,110 sq. meters of land which in occupation of the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank as a tenant. Some open area of about 72 sq. meters of the said bungalow was leased out to Salim Khan at one point of time by the then Administrator General on which he had constructed 8 shops which are in occupancy of different tenants who are now paying rent to the Administrator General. The Court on the basis of the valuation report fixed Rs. 3crore 50 lacs as the minimum reserved price of the main bungalow which is in occupation of the Bank and Rs. 12 lacs as the minimum reserved price of the 8 shops and the land underneath it with Rs. 1, 50,000/- as the minimum reserved price of individual shops. The Court on the basis of the valuation report fixed Rs. 3crore 50 lacs as the minimum reserved price of the main bungalow which is in occupation of the Bank and Rs. 12 lacs as the minimum reserved price of the 8 shops and the land underneath it with Rs. 1, 50,000/- as the minimum reserved price of individual shops. Accordingly, Administrator General was permitted to advertise for sale of the above properties in three lots; A, B and C wherein lot ‘A’ consists of main bungalow; lot ‘B’ consists of 8 shops and the land underneath it; and lot ‘C’ consists of individual shops. 8. Thereafter, an order was passed on 15.5.2013 permitting the Administrator General some more time for publishing advertisement for sale and for inviting tenders fixing 10th July 2013 as the date for opening the tenders. 9. In pursuance of both the above orders till date no advertisement has been published as in the meantime the applicant had filed a writ petition challenging these entire proceedings which has now been dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant thereafter has filed this application for recall of the above two orders. 10. The applicant contends that she is one of the relatives of the deceased and is the heir entitle to succeed to his properties. The Administrator General has manipulated for the sale of the above properties and instead of filing the application before Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Testamentary Case No. 3 of 1979 has illegally instituted fresh proceedings at Allahabad. The applicant’s case for succession is pending in district Bahraich and therefore the properties of the deceased are not liable to be sold. Lastly, he submitted that as the Administrator General has not applied for transfer of case No. 3 of 1979 to Allahabad, the present proceedings cannot be permitted to continue in view of one of the interlocutory orders dated 3.12.2002 passed in the present proceedings. 11. The stand of the Administrator General is that he had all through acted bona-fidely. There is no manipulation. The proceedings under Section 25 of the Act are separate and since the office of the Administrator General is situate at Allahabad, he has rightly moved the application before the Bench at Allahabad. 12. 11. The stand of the Administrator General is that he had all through acted bona-fidely. There is no manipulation. The proceedings under Section 25 of the Act are separate and since the office of the Administrator General is situate at Allahabad, he has rightly moved the application before the Bench at Allahabad. 12. Section 7 of the Act entitles the Administrator General to Letters of Administration only if it is not granted to the next of kins of the deceased. The applicant had not applied for grant of Letters of Administration. She had even participated in the proceedings initiated by the Administrator General before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahbad High Court. She had not contested the said proceedings and opposed the grant claimed by the Administrator General. There is no dispute that Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased was granted to the Administrator General and the said order is final and conclusive. It has not been challenged by any party much less the applicant in any higher forum and the same has not been recalled, cancelled or revoked. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Administrator General is legally authorized to administer the estate of the deceased and the applicant cannot intervene in its administration. Once the said estate has been permitted to be administered by the Administrator General, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Act can give general or special directions to the Administrator General with regard to the administration of the estate. The applicant has no right or locus to inter-meddle with the administration of the estate of the deceased by the Administrator General so long the grant stands in his favour. The applicant has not applied for recall of the order dated 4.2.1981 granting Letters of Administration to the Administrator General on any ground. 14. It is in view of the said power vested in the High Court that the Administrator General moved the present application. The application may be for a limited prayer but once such an application has been put-forth before the Court, the Court has ample authority to issue general or special directions from time to time to the Administrator General for the purposes of proper administration of the estate irrespective of the prayer made in the application. 15. The application may be for a limited prayer but once such an application has been put-forth before the Court, the Court has ample authority to issue general or special directions from time to time to the Administrator General for the purposes of proper administration of the estate irrespective of the prayer made in the application. 15. It is important to note that a estate which is under management by the Administrator General for a period of 12 years is required to be transferred to the State Government in accordance with Section 51 of the Act. Rule 52 of the Rules provides for the transfer of assets in the form of ready money which means the money realized from sale of the assets. In view of the above, High Court is competent enough to issue directions not only for administration of the estate of the deceased to the Administrator General but also for the sale of the properties so that the property is converted into ready money to be put in custody of the State Government. 16. The applicant who is not authorized to administer the property and who has not so far been recognized as the rightful heir of the deceased cannot have any grievance regarding the manner of administration of the said property. The applicant has not applied for recall of the order granting right of administration of the estate to the Administrator General as envisaged under Section 14 of the Act. 17. The proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration virtually comes to an end with the grant of Letters of Administration except submission of periodical accounts. Therefore, the proceedings initiated on the application under Section 25 of the Act are administrative in nature or at best quasi-judicial. The application under Section 25 can be maintained independent of the proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration. 18. The office of Administrator General, U.P. is situate at Allahabad. Therefore, notwithstanding the location of the property of the deceased the cause of action in part for moving an application under Section 25 of the Act arises at Allahabad also The cause of action for filing the application is not confined to the Oudh areas to oust the jurisdiction of the Allahabad bench. 19. Therefore, notwithstanding the location of the property of the deceased the cause of action in part for moving an application under Section 25 of the Act arises at Allahabad also The cause of action for filing the application is not confined to the Oudh areas to oust the jurisdiction of the Allahabad bench. 19. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 , it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the expression”cause of action” with regard to civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases before Lucknow or at Allaahbad according to place of cause of action. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow bench alone will have jurisdiction and if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas of Oudh, then Allahabad bench will have jurisdiction. However, where the cause of action arises partly in Oudh areas and partly outside it, the litigant is free to frame the petition appropriately either at Lucknow or Allahabad. 20. In the instant case as the part of cause of action also arises at Allahabad outside the Oudh areas, the filing of the application under Section 25 of the Act before this bench is not without jurisdiction. In Nasiruddin (Supra) it has also been held that Chief Justice in exercise of his power under second provisio to paragrpah 14 of the Amalgamation Order in his discretion may direct that any case arising in Oudh areas be heard at Allahabad. Therefore, any case within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow bench can always be directed to be heard by Allahabad, bench. 21. The interlocutory order dated 3.12.2002 only gives liberty to the Administrator General to make a request to the Chief Justice for transferring the Testamentary Case No. 3 of 1979 from Lucknow Bench to Allahabad under clause 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) order 1948 and in case the Chief Justice does not agree for its transfer, he may consider transfer of this application to Lucknow. 22. The object of the said order is to ensure the clubbing of the record of both the proceedings so that the record of earlier proceedings, if necessary, may be easily referred and perused. It does not preclude the Administrator General from proceeding with the application without getting the record of Lucknow transferred to Allahabad. 22. The object of the said order is to ensure the clubbing of the record of both the proceedings so that the record of earlier proceedings, if necessary, may be easily referred and perused. It does not preclude the Administrator General from proceeding with the application without getting the record of Lucknow transferred to Allahabad. The failure on part of the Administrator General to move any application for transfer of the proceedings is not fatal to these proceedings. It may be a mere irregularity of a curable nature which can still be taken care of. 23. Much exercise has been done by the Court in these proceedings. Therefore, it would not be prudent to nullify it on a mere technicality that there is no order of the Chief Justice permitting hearing of it at Allahabad. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application of the Administrator General under Section 25 of the Act is maintainable independent of the proceedings of the Testamentary Case wherein Letters of Administration had been granted way back on 4.2.1981 in favour of the Administrator General both at Lucknow bench and Allahabad bench and even if Lucknow bench alone is found to be vested with the jurisdiction, the Chief Justice at his discretion can direct it to be heard at Allahabad. Thus to be on the safe side and to honour the interlocutory order dated 3.12.2002, the Registry is directed to lay the papers of this case before the Chief Justice for passing appropriate order under paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order, if necessary. 25. The orders dated 20.3.2013 and 15.5.2013 are consequential orders of interlocutory nature passed with the object of converting the assets of the deceased into ready money for transfer to the State Government under Section 51 of the Act which are not prejudicial to the applicant. These orders do not purport to decide any substantive rights of the applicant. The applicant can claim the refund of the value of the estate from the state in case she succeeds in any proceedings and is held entitle to the estate and credits of the deceased. In view of the totality of the above facts and circumstances, the recall application No. 632321 of 2013 filed by the applicant is rejected. 26. The applicant can claim the refund of the value of the estate from the state in case she succeeds in any proceedings and is held entitle to the estate and credits of the deceased. In view of the totality of the above facts and circumstances, the recall application No. 632321 of 2013 filed by the applicant is rejected. 26. Administrator General is permitted to proceed with the publication of the above advertisement for sale of the properties. The advertisement may be published in the Lucknow edition of the newspapers Hindustan Times and Amar Ujala in place of earlier newspapers fixed by this Court clearly mentioning the minimum reserved price of the properties of each of the lots. The advertisement shall be published by 7th January 2014. 27. The last date for submission of tenders shall be 7th February 2014 and the tenders would be opened on 12th February 2014 in Chambers. The usual terms and conditions of the sale would apply regarding deposit of earnest money and security etc. The draft notice for sale appended with the application is approved. Application No. 197050 of 2013 is allowed.