JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Sri Saurabh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 who has appeared on caveat. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit which is taken on record. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 22.07.2024 whereby the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner upholding the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 10.04.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the private respondents was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Nayab Tehsildar to decide the matter afresh. 4. To put the matter in a perspective, certain facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter:- 5. It is the admitted case that the property in question belonged to one Sri Pooran Singh who expired on 19.04.2019. Sri Pooran Singh was survived by his three sons namely Shambhu Nath, Bhola Nath and Pushkar Singh. The present petitioner is from the branch of Bhola Nath whereas the respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the two sons of Pooran Singh. 6. The case as developed by the private respondent no. 5 that Pooran Singh had executed a will dated 07.10.2009 in favour of the Shambhu Nath and therefore he claimed rights in the property on the basis of the said will. The said will was contested by the present petitioner and they claimed that since the will was not executed by Pooran Singh, hence, they would have a right on the basis of inheritance. 7. While the proceedings were pending before the respondent no. 4, it has been emphasized that large number of dates were fixed by the said court and despite repeated and multiple opportunities granted to the respondent no. 5 yet the attesting witness of the said will dated 19.04.2019 could not be produced before the Court and the respondent no. 4 came to the conclusion that since the witnesses of the will were not forthcoming for their evidence, hence, the private respondent no.5 was unable to prove the will, consequently, on the basis of inheritance, the mutation order dated 07.04.2022 was passed. This order of mutation dated 07.04.2022 was assailed by the private respondent no. 5 by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow. 8. This order of mutation dated 07.04.2022 was assailed by the private respondent no. 5 by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow. 8. The Sub Divisional Magistrate while hearing the appeal found that adequate opportunity was not granted to the private respondent no. 5, consequently, it set aside the order dated 07.04.2022 and remitted the matter for decision afresh. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved from the Appellate order preferred a revision before the respondent no. 2 who also did not find favour with the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the revision. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant petition has been filed. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that repeated opportunities were granted to the private respondent no. 5 to prove the will. There was ample evidence in shape of the orders of the court which indicated that for more than three years the matter remained pending and opportunity was available to the private respondent no. 5 for examining the attesting witnesses. On all such occasions, the witnesses did not come forward and despite opportunity, the case was decided but the Appellate Court has shown undue sympathy while allowing the appeal. 11. It is urged that the ground which has been taken by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority is incorrect in light of the repeated opportunities given to the private respondent no. 5. 12. The Trial Court while rejecting the application under Order 16 Rule 2 had specifically noticed that the witnesses of the will had retracted and despite the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the private respondent did not get an opportunity, hence, the reasoning adopted both by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Court is contrary to law. 13. Sri Saurabh Verma, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5 on the other hand submits that since the attesting witnesses were not cooperating or were not readily available for being examined, in such circumstances, the private respondent no. 5 had moved an application under Order 16 Rule 2, the said application was also rejected on insufficient grounds and nevertheless once this matter was placed before the Appellate Authority, it recorded a finding that the private respondent no. 5 had moved an application under Order 16 Rule 2, the said application was also rejected on insufficient grounds and nevertheless once this matter was placed before the Appellate Authority, it recorded a finding that the private respondent no. 5 did not get an adequate opportunity to prove his will, in such circumstances, a mere remand order which does not affect the rights of any of the parties was not assailable before the Revisional Court. 14. Be that as it may, since the Revisional Court also echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the Appellate Authority, hence, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any error which is apparent on the face of record to persuade this Court to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material record, the sole issue which requires attention of this Court is, whether the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Revisional Authority is based on sound reasoning or not. 16. In this perspective, if the impugned orders are seen, it would be found that the matter had been engaging the attention of the respondent no. 4 wherein the private respondent no. 5 had staked his rights in the property in question on the basis of the will dated 07.10.2009 executed by Sri Pooran Singh in favour of Shambhu Nath. 17. Since it is the mandate of law that in order to prove the will, at least one of the attesting witness is required to be examined in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1870, hence, the private respondent no. 5 had made efforts to examine the said witnesses but since they did not cooperate and were not willing to be examined, hence, in such circumstances, the private respondent no. 5 moved an application dated 15.10.2020 seeking indulgence of the respondent no.4 to summon the said witnesses through the process of the Court. 18. The record further indicates that the said application remained pending and ultimately on 21st March, 2022, the said application came to be rejected. 5 moved an application dated 15.10.2020 seeking indulgence of the respondent no.4 to summon the said witnesses through the process of the Court. 18. The record further indicates that the said application remained pending and ultimately on 21st March, 2022, the said application came to be rejected. The said order dated 21.03.2022 is available for perusal of the Court as part of the order sheet which has been brought on record by the petitioner with the supplementary affidavit at running page 23 of the said affidavit. 19. From the perusal of the said order, the reasons adopted by the Trial Court while rejecting the said application was the fact that several times notices were issued, none came forward to get the evidence recorded and in such circumstances where several opportunities have been granted and several dates have been fixed, coupled with the fact that there was an expedite order by the High Court and in such circumstances, the application was rejected. 20. What this Court finds is that the basic averment which was made in the application moved by the private respondent no. 5 that the attesting witnesses had retracted and declined to come at the instance of the private respondent no. 5 for getting their evidence recorded and the same had been placed on record in shape of an application. There should have been proper application of mind to reject the same. 21. It may be true that the private respondent no. 5 could have assailed the order at that stage but nevertheless that is not going to have an impact since once the order had been passed by the respondent no. 4 on 07.04.2022, the said order dated 21.03.2022 also merged with the final order and it was available for the private respondent no. 5 to have assailed the same while filing an appeal. 22. It is in this context that the Appellate Court having taken a wholesome view of the entire controversy has remitted the matter to the respondent no. 4 for decision afresh. The same has been affirmed by the Revisional Court and this Court does not find that there is any palpable error which is apparent on the face of record to persuade this Court to intervene at this stage. Since the matter is already seized by the respondent no. 4 for decision afresh. The same has been affirmed by the Revisional Court and this Court does not find that there is any palpable error which is apparent on the face of record to persuade this Court to intervene at this stage. Since the matter is already seized by the respondent no. 4, it is expected that he shall conclude the hearing and decide the matter in terms of the remand order as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, preferrably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent no. 4. It is also provided that in case if the respondent no. 5 does not give adequate support for expeditious hearing, the court concerned shall be well within its rights to proceed with the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 23. It is made clear that the Court has only examined the grounds for remanding the matter and has not examined the contentions of the parties on merit of the controversy and it shall be open for the court concerned to take a view strictly in accordance with law. 24. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.