Patna High Court – Orders
Vijay Raman @ Vijay Kumar Raman @ Bijay … vs Most. Kavita Raman on 17 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.24 of 2023
In
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.842 of 2018
======================================================
1.1. Most. Jyoti Raman W/o Late Vijay Raman @ Vijay Kumar Raman @ Bijay
Kumar Raman, Resident of Mohalla - Aamgola Road, Aghoria Bazar, P.S. -
Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.2. Ashish Raman Son of Late Vijay Raman @ Vijay Kumar Raman @ Bijay
Kumar Raman, Resident of Mohalla - Aamgola Road, Aghoria Bazar, P.S. -
Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.3. Avinash Raman, Son of Late Vijay Raman @ Vijay Kumar Raman @ Bijay
Kumar Raman, Resident of Mohalla - Aamgola Road, Aghoria Bazar, P.S. -
Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.4. Ashi Raman, Daughter of Late Vijay Raman @ Vijay Kumar Raman @
Bijay Kumar Raman, Resident of Mohalla - Aamgola Road, Aghoria Bazar,
P.S. - Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Defendant/s / Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Most. Kavita Raman, Daughter of Late Vinay Raman, Resident of Mohalla-
Aghoria Bazar, Aamgola Road, Near Mamajee Dry Cleaners, P.O.- Ramna,
P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, Anchal Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
......... Plaintiff / respondent / Opposite Party 1st Set
2. Puja Raman, Daughter of Late Binay Raman, Resident of Mohalla- Aghoria
Bazar, Aamgola Road, Near Mamajee Dry Cleaners, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Kazi
Mohammadpur, Anchal Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
3. Supriya Raman. Daughter of Late Binay Raman, Resident of Mohalla-
Aghoria Bazar, Aamgola Road, Near Mamajee Dry Cleaners, P.O.- Ramna,
P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, Anchal Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
4. Ritik Raman Minor, Son of Late Binay Raman, under the guardianship of
his natural mother Kavita Raman, (Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are grand
daughters and son of Late Vijay Raman).
Resident of Mohalla- Aghoria Bazar, Aamgola Road, Near Mamajee Dry
Cleaners, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, Anchal Musahari,
District- Muzaffarpur.
5. Ritu Raman. Daughter of Late Binod Raman, Resident of Mohalla- Aghoria
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
2/17
Bazar, Aamgola Road, Near Mamajee Dry Cleaners, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Kazi
Mohammadpur, Anchal Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
6. Rohit Raman, Son of Late Binod Raman, Resident of Mohalla- Aghoria
Bazar, Aamgola Road, Near Mamajee Dry Cleaners, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Kazi
Mohammadpur, Anchal Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Defendant / Respondent/s / Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Ishiqua Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Smiti Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
18 17-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This Civil Revision application has been filed
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as ‘CPC‘) against order dated 09.04.2018 passed in
the Probate Case No. 71 of 2013, by the learned 13 th Additional
District Judge, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial
Court’) whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court has
rejected the prayer under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC.
3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that Probate Case
No. 71 of 2013 was instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party
no.1 for grant of probate in respect of an alleged last Will dated
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
3/17
27.10.2011 said to have been executed by Late Most. Shanta
Devi concerning the property described therein. Shanta Devi
was mother-in-law of the plaintiff/opposite party no.1, who died
on 11.11.2011 at her residence. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1
is widow of Binay Raman (son of Shanta Devi) lived with and
served Late Most. Shanta Devi, who, being satisfied and
affectionate to plaintiff/opposite party no.1, executed a
registered Will dated 27.10.2011 in favour of opposite party
no.1 at the Registration Office in the baithaka of Katib Ashok
Kumar in a sound state of mind. The said Will was read over
and explained to her, and she signed each page with her own
handwriting and executed in the presence of witnesses Katib
Ashok Kumar and Subodh Sahu. Thereafter, it was presented for
registration. After the death of Shanta Devi, the plaintiff/
opposite party no.1 performed the funeral and sharadh
ceremonies and came into possession of the land in question.
4. The original petitioner/objector (Vijay Raman),
upon appearance in the probate proceeding, filed a detailed
objection controverting the entire case of the plaintiff/ opposite
party no.1. It was specifically submitted that the alleged Will
dated 27.10.2011 is forged and fabricated and was never
executed by Late Most. Shanta Devi in a sound disposing state
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
4/17
of mind. It was further asserted that the testatrix (Late Most.
Shanta Devi) was seriously ill prior to her death and was not in
a fit mental condition to understand or execute any testamentary
document. The objector also claimed that the property in
question originally belonged to Babu Rajendra Kumar, who had
earlier executed a registered Will dated 09.09.2008 in favour of
the objector, and that Probate Case No. 3 of 2011 had already
been instituted by him in respect of the said earlier Will.
Moreover, it has been stated therein that the genuineness and
validity of the said Will is in dispute, inter alia, on the ground
that the same is forged and fabricated and that the statutory
requirements governing execution and attestation of a Will have
not been complied with. During the pendency of the probate
proceeding, the objector filed an application dated 12.01.2017
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC praying for rejection of the
probate petition primarily on the ground of non-compliance with
Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. On the
aforesaid grounds, the probate petition was contested both on
facts and in law.
5. Considering the materials available on record and
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial
Court rejected the petition dated 12.01.2017 as not maintainable
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
5/17
vide impugned order dated 09.04.2018 holding that Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC is applicable only in a case where there is
involvement of pure question of law but in this case, it is mixed
with question relating to the facts and it needs trial on that
question.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.04.2018
passed by the learned Trial Court in Probate Case No. 71 of
2013, whereby the petition dated 12.01.2017 filed under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected, the petitioner has
preferred this Civil Revision application before this Court,
assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order
on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the mandatory provisions of law and has exercised
jurisdiction with material irregularity.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the
impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted
that the very foundation of Probate Case No. 71 of 2013 is
legally unsustainable inasmuch as the probate petition, on its
own showing, does not disclose compliance with the mandatory
requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. It is
submitted that the plaint (probate petition), specifically states
that the alleged Will dated 27.10.2011 was identified and
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
6/17
witnessed by only one person, namely Subodh Sahu, and there
is no averment whatsoever that it was attested by two witnesses
as required under law. Since Section 63(c) of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 mandates that a Will shall be attested by at
least two witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator
sign and must sign in the presence of the testator, the absence of
such pleading renders the probate petition defective on the face
of the record and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC.
7.i. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a jurisdictional
error in refusing to reject the petition under Order VII Rule 11
of the CPC despite the apparent non-compliance with the
statutory mandate. It is submitted that the requirement of
attestation by two witnesses is not a mere procedural formality
but a substantive condition for the validity of a Will. In absence
of foundational pleadings showing compliance with Section
63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 no triable issue arises
and continuation of the proceeding would amount to permitting
a legally untenable claim to proceed with trial. Learned counsel,
thus, contended that the impugned order dated 09.04.2018
suffers from material irregularity and misapplication of law.
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
7/17
7.ii. It is, lastly, submitted that while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the learned
Trial Court has erroneously relied upon statements made in the
rejoinder dated 30.03.2017 to infer compliance with Section
63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 though no such
pleading exists in the original probate petition. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh and Ors.
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 701 wherein, it has been held that for
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
only the averments in the plaint are to be considered. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and
liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/
opposite party 1st set supported the impugned order passed by
the learned Trial Court and submitted that the present civil
revision is wholly devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed
at the threshold. It is submitted that the application under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC was rightly rejected by the learned Trial
Court, as the grounds taken therein pertains to disputed question
of facts which cannot be adjudicated without trial. It is further
submitted that while considering an application under Order VII
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
8/17
Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is required to look only into the
averments made in the plaint and not the defence raised by the
defendants. In the present case, the plaint clearly discloses a
valid cause of action founded upon a registered Will. Learned
counsel submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the
Will is invalid for want of proper attestation is a matter
requiring evidence, particularly when the plaint asserts that the
testator executed the Will in the presence of witnesses and that
the Katib had also signed the document, and whether such
signing amounts to valid attestation, is a mixed question of facts
and law.
8.i. Learned counsel for the opposite party further
submitted that issues relating to execution, attestation and proof
of a Will necessarily require appreciation of evidence and
examination of witnesses in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence
Act, and, therefore, cannot form the basis for rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is submitted that
even assuming arguendo that there exists any defect in
attestation, the same goes to the merits of the case and does not
extinguish the cause of action disclosed in the plaint. Learned
counsel, in order to substantiate his case, put his reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karam
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
9/17
Singh v. Amarjit Singh and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2240. It is submitted that in view of the existence of
such triable issues and the settled legal position, the impugned
order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the
present civil revision deserves to be dismissed.
8.ii. It is lastly submitted that the scope of interference
in a civil revision is extremely limited and is confined only to
cases where the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not
vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so
vested, or has acted with material irregularity. It is submitted
that in the present case, the learned Trial Court has exercised its
jurisdiction strictly in accordance with settled principles
governing Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and has rightly held
that the objections raised by the petitioners require adjudication
upon evidence. It is further submitted that no jurisdictional
error, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated so
as to warrant interference by this Court. The attempt of the
petitioners is merely to short-circuit a full-fledged trial by
inviting this Court to examine disputed facts at a preliminary
stage, which is impermissible in law. Hence, it is submitted that
the Civil Revision application, being misconceived and devoid
of substance, is fit to be dismissed.
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
10/17
9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials available
on record and including the impugned order, the point that arises
for determination in the present revision is “whether the learned
Trial Court erred in law in rejecting the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint?”
10. It is well settled that the scope of interference in a
Civil Revision is circumscribed and supervisory in nature. This
Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate the facts
or substitute its own view merely because another view is
possible; interference is warranted only where the subordinate
Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to
exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted with material
irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdiction. In matters
arising out of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the
revisional scrutiny is further confined to examining whether the
Court concerned has applied the settled principles governing
rejection of plaint, namely, whether the plaint on its face
discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law. If the Court
concerned has correctly confined itself to the averments in the
plaint and has declined to adjudicate disputed questions of fact
at the threshold, no jurisdictional error can be said to have been
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
11/17
committed so as to warrant interference in revisional
jurisdiction.
11. At this stage, it is pertinent to examine the scope
of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as explained in various
decisions and the legal principles deducible. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kamla and Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Ors., reported
in (2008) 12 SCC 661 while stipulating the scope of Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC, held as under:
“21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has
limited application. It must be shown that
the suit is barred under any law. Such a
conclusion must be drawn from the
averments made in the plaint. Different
clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion,
should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given
case, an application for rejection of the
plaint may be filed on more than one ground
specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a
clear finding to that effect must be arrived
at. What would be relevant for invoking
clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are
the averments made in the plaint. For that
purpose, there cannot be any addition or
subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the
part of a court can be invoked at different
stages and under different provisions of the
Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one,
Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7
Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of
evidence can be looked into. The issues on
merit of the matter which may arise between
the parties would not be within the realm of
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
12/17the court at that stage. All issues shall not be
the subject-matter of an order under the said
provision.”
12. The material to be considered for rejecting the
plaint has been dealt with in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) and Ors., reported in (2020) 7
SCC 366 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the
principles and made the following observations:
“23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is
an independent and special remedy, wherein the
court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit
at the threshold, without proceeding to record
evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of
the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the
action should be terminated on any of the
grounds contained in this provision.
23.5. The power conferred on the court to
terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic
one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7
Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.9. In exercise of power under this
provision, the court would determine if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary to
statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding
whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the
threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the
merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
adverted to, or taken into consideration. [Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3
SCC 137]
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
13/1723.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede &
Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.,
(2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held that it
is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a
passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the
substance, and not merely the form, which has
to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed
as it stands, without addition or subtraction of
words. If the allegations in the plaint prima
facie show a cause of action, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran
v. R.V. Janakiraman [D. Ramachandran v. R.V.
Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay
Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR
1962 SC 941] .
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly
vexatious and without any merit, and does not
disclose a right to sue, the court would be
justified in exercising the power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is
mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint
“shall” be rejected if any of the grounds
specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If
the court finds that the plaint does not disclose
a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by
any law, the court has no option, but to reject
the plaint.”
13. In view thereof, the Court must determine whether
the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the
averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents
relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
14/17
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the said
principle in Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors., reported
in (2024) 14 SCC 390, and observed in para 6 as under:
“6. In simple terms, the true test
is first to read the plaint meaningfully
and as a whole, taking it to be true.
Upon such reading, if the plaint
discloses a cause of action, then the
application under Order 7 Rule
11CPC must fail. To put it negatively,
where it does not disclose a cause of
action, the plaint shall be rejected.”
15. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karam
Singh (supra) has observed the principle governing Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC as under:
“15. Before we assess the
correctness of the impugned orders,
we must remind ourselves of the basic
principles governing rejection of a
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Here, the defendants seek rejection of
plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e.,
suit barred by law). Clause (d) makes
it clear that while considering
rejection of the plaint thereunder only
the averments made in the plaint and
nothing else is to be considered to find
out whether the suit is barred by law.
At this stage, the defense is not to be
considered. Thus, whether the suit is
barred by any law or not is to be
determined on the basis of averments
made in the plaint.”
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
15/17
16. Based on meticulous examination of the facts and
circumstances and settled position of law, this Court finds that
the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was
wholly misconceived. At the stage of considering an application
for rejection of plaint, the Court is required to confine itself
strictly to the averments made in the plaint and the documents
relied upon therein; the defence taken by the defendants is
wholly irrelevant for such determination. In the present case, the
core objection raised by the petitioners relates to the alleged
invalidity of the Will on the ground of improper attestation,
particularly the contention that there was only one attesting
witness. However, the plaint specifically avers that the testator
executed the Will in the presence of witnesses and that the Katib
had also signed the document, thereby raising a disputed
question as to whether the statutory requirement of attestation
stands satisfied. Such a plea gives rise to a triable issue of fact
and law, which necessarily requires evidence and cannot be
adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC.
17. Notably, it is well settled that questions relating to
execution, attestation, proof and validity of a Will involve
appreciation of evidence, including examination of attesting
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
16/17
witnesses and cannot be decided without trial. The alleged
defect in attestation, even if assumed for the sake of argument,
pertains to the merits of the case and does not render the plaint
liable to be rejected at the outset. Moreover, where the validity
of a document itself is under challenge and disputed question
arises, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC. In view of the existence of triable issues and the
settled legal position that defence cannot be looked into at this
stage, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Accordingly, this Court
finds no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
warranting interference.
18. In view of the discussions and findings recorded
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as the plaint discloses a
cause of action and the objections raised by the petitioners
involve disputed and triable issues which cannot be adjudicated
at the threshold. Therefore, the impugned order dated
09.04.2018 passed by the learned 13th Additional District Judge,
Muzaffarpur, in Probate Case No. 71 of 2013 is hereby affirmed.
19. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision is
Patna High Court C.R. No.24 of 2023(18) dt.17-02-2026
17/17
dismissed.
20. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the
matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same
expeditiously.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U
