JUDGMENT : Mr. S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. L. Khyriem, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners who submits that the original owner, Mr. Prem Singh Subba, now died, executed a will in favour of respondent No.1 though there is every doubt that the will is not a genuine one and respondent has filed for probate which is pending before the learned District Judge, Shillong. 2. In the meantime, respondent No.1 also filed a Title Suit bearing No. 9 (H) of 2014 along with Misc. Case No. 4 (H) of 2011 praying for perpetual injunction as well as other relief on the said suit. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application for challenging the maintainability of the Title Suit and the same was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Munsiff, petitioner approached the learned District Judge but he expressed his inability to interfere with the petition and thereafter the petitioner was compelled to withdraw the petition and filed this instant revision petition before this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. A.S. Siddiqui submits that he has filed the Title Suit bearing No. 9 (H) of 2014 just to protect himself from dispossession and eviction. 5. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that since the probate is already in existence it is to be decided in accordance with law first. Besides that, to decide the title is purely a matter of evidence. As such, this Court is unable to decide the matter until and unless the Trial Court collects the evidence. It is also noticed that learned District Judge has not given any reason why he could not interfere with the petition moved by the petitioner. 6. Thus, I am of the further view that since the Will is in existence and the probate petition is pending before the learned District Judge, the Title Suit is not maintainable or desirable. However, the fear in the mind of the respondent No.1 that he will be evicted or dispossessed cannot be considered on the basis of assumption. However, this Court directs the petitioner not to dispossess the respondent No.1 from the possession without due process of law. 7. However, the fear in the mind of the respondent No.1 that he will be evicted or dispossessed cannot be considered on the basis of assumption. However, this Court directs the petitioner not to dispossess the respondent No.1 from the possession without due process of law. 7. With this observation and direction, the matter is remanded back to the court of learned District Judge to look into the matter and dispose of the probate case as early as possible. 8. Before I part with the case record, I also observed that learned District Judge has ample inherent power under Section 151 CPC, so he can apply as and when necessary for the interest of justice. 9. Registry is directed to return back the lower court case record immediately with a copy of this order. Matter stands disposed of.