ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred with a view to challenge the order dated 6.9.2018, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court for short), whereby the petitioner’s request for staying the proceedings in the application for grant of probate, was rejected. 2. Avoiding the unnecessary factual details, suffice it to state that petitioner had filed a suit for partition of the property purportedly owned jointly with his father Dharmichand and brother Sunil Kumar Jain. The said suit was filed in the year 2006 and the same being suit no.10/2006 pending consideration before the competent court at Jaitaran. 3. Meanwhile, wife of Dharmi Chand passed away having bequeathed her property to his grand-son Naman Jain, respondent no.1 herein, vide a Will dated 2.3.2004. 4. Naman Jain in turn filed an application under Section 266, 267 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate with respect to the Will dated 2.3.2004, executed by his grand-mother Nathi Kanwar, who was wife of defendant no.1 in the said suit for partition filed by Bhag Chand, the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to note that Nathi Kanwari was not party to the suit proceedings (No.10/2006) 5. The petitioner being defendant no.6, in subject probate proceedings registered as Case No.26/2014 (Old No.78/2010), filed an application dated 18.9.2017 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that as the subject mater of the suit No.10/2006 field prior in time, is common, the present proceedings for probate be stayed till the disposal of the suit (no.10/2006) pending before the Addl. District Judge, Jaitaran. 6. The learned trial court rejected the said application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, observing that the other suit is a suit for partition; whereas the present application has been filed for grant of probate and hence both the proceedings are different and even the properties involved are different. 7. Assailing the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the learned trial court, Mr. Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner taken the Court through the pleadings of application for grant of probate (Annex.1) [case no.26/2014 (Old No.78/2010)] vis-a-vis plaint of the suit no.10/2006 being suit for partition issues framed in both the cases and contended that the property covered by the Will is substantially same. Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner taken the Court through the pleadings of application for grant of probate (Annex.1) [case no.26/2014 (Old No.78/2010)] vis-a-vis plaint of the suit no.10/2006 being suit for partition issues framed in both the cases and contended that the property covered by the Will is substantially same. Having highlighted these facts, learned counsel submitted that as the subject of both the suits so also some of the issues are common, it was required of the learned trial court to stay the subject probate proceedings pending in its court. 8. In support of his arguments learned counsel cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Balbir Singh Wasu Vs. Lakhbir Singh & Ors. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 503 . 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the application for grant of probate and the suit for partition filed by the petitioner. 10. A bare look at the suit for partition (No. 10/2006) filed by the petitioner reveals that the same had been filed for partition of various properties mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint, was sought amongst the co-owners of the said properties; whereas Naman Jain (respondent no.1 herein) has filed the instant application for grant of probate with respect to Will dated 2.3.2004 executed by Nathi Kanwari, who has seemingly bequeathed her properties to him (respondent no.1). It may be true that it involves some of the properties for which partition has been sought by the petitioner, but that cannot be a consideration for applicability of Section 10 of the Code. 11. A close and conjoint reading of the application and the plaint vis-a-vis the relief claimed clearly shows that the present proceedings for grant of probate are entirely different than the proceedings pending in the form of suit no.10/2006. Merely because some of or all the properties conveyed through Will are subject to the suit for partition, it cannot be said that the matter in issue is same. As far as the expression “matter in issue” is concerned, the same cannot be confused with the “property indispute” inasmuch the term “matter in issue”, if interpreted purposively would mean an amalgam of all the factors; the relief claimed, the basis of the plaint and the point of determination. 12. As far as the expression “matter in issue” is concerned, the same cannot be confused with the “property indispute” inasmuch the term “matter in issue”, if interpreted purposively would mean an amalgam of all the factors; the relief claimed, the basis of the plaint and the point of determination. 12. In the present probate proceedings filed under Section 266, 267 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, the learned trial court is required to confine itself to the ingredients required for grant of probate only viz. valid execution of the Will. The Court in the instant case is not required to decide as to whether the disputed properties are joint properties or ancestral properties or not. 13. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) on the other hand, does not support the argument advanced by learned counsel Mr. Samdariya; inasmuch as Hon'ble the Supreme Court in somewhat similar fact situation refused to stay the probate proceedings. Though looking to the cause-effect relation of the issues, the Supreme Court has ordered to hear both of them at one place. Mr. Samdariya alternatively prayed that as has been done by Hon'ble Supreme Court, both the proceedings be transferred to one court and/or consolidated, so that common adjudication of both the cases is done. 14. According to me, the issues in suit for partition and the probate proceedings do not overlap and decision of one will not terminate the proceedings of the other. Hence, no consolidation is imperative. 15. As far as the prayer of transfer of the case is concerned, this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, does not deem it appropriate to transfer the case as prayed by Mr. Samdariya. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be free to move appropriate application for transfer of the case before the competent court. 16. As a result of the discussion foregoing, I do not find any error of law in the impugned order, rejecting petitioner’s request for staying the probate proceedings. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 6.9.2018. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.