Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34827 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5790 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suboor Fatima And Another Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Administration Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Rakesh Kumar Verma,Sheo Pal Singh,Vishwakant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhaiya Lal Yadav,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Dilip kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.7. The record indicates that Sri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents No.4 on caveat. However, Sri Shobhnath Pandey, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama, on behalf of respondent no.4, which is taken on record. So far as the respondents No.5 and 6 are concerned, they are minor children of the respondent No.4. The petitioners have approached this Court assailing the order dated 10.3.2025 passed by the Revisional Court in proceedings arising out of mutation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute arises regarding succession to the property of Late Fatima Zahra w/o Mazharuddin who is reported to have died on 26.12.2022. The present petitioners are two daughters of deceased Fatima Zehra whereas the private respondent nos.4 to 6 are the widow and minor children of predeceased son of Fatima Zahra namely Umairuddin (who is reported to have died on 05.4.2021). Submission is that in the mutation proceedings while vide order dated 25.03.2023 mutation was ordered in favour of the private respondents which was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision wherein a copy of Will dated 28.11.2022 said to have been executed by Fatima Zahra was placed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the said Will was placed on record it was incumbent upon the revisional authority to have remitted the matter to enable the parties to prove the Will as the issue had to be decided by some court, who would take cognizance of the said Will. It is urged that without proving the Will and without leading any evidence at the behest of the private respondent nos.4 to 6, the revisional court has relied upon the report of a handwriting expert and had observed that the signatures on the said Will is different and does not match. It is urged that the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction in giving such a finding specially when neither the said Will had been proved by the petitioner herein nor the handwriting expert report was proved by the private respondent who had relied upon the same and for the aforesaid reason the finding returned by the revisional court is in excess of jurisdiction vested in law hence the order dated 10.03.2025 is bad and deserves to be set aside. Sri Shobhnath Pandey learned counsel for the private respondent nos.4 to 6 has urged that even though the Will was for the first time was placed before the revisional court and it is not disputed by him that he had also filed the report of the handwriting expert along with his written arguments, but nevertheless even if the same is ignored the revisional court has not relied upon the same. He has also pointed out that there are two civil suits engaging the attention of the competent civil court wherein the authenticity and veracity of the said Will in question is engaging the attention and in such circumstances the impugned order which is arising out of mutation proceedings which is summary in nature would not impact the right of the petitioners and consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Having taken note of the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, this Court prima facie finds that the revisional court has not given any conclusive findings. Since the said document had been placed on record hence it has been referred with fleeting reference without there being any finding. It is also relevant to notice that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that no evidence to prove the Will has been led. It is also not disputed by the counsel for the private respondent that they too have not led any evidence nor examined the handwriting expert before the Revenue Court. In the aforesaid circumstances where the Will still remain unproved in accordance with law and the civil suit are already engaging the attention where the subject matter is the said Will hence this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is disposed of leaving it open for the parties to get their rights adjudicated in the civil suit which are pending and it is further observed that any observation made in the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 either in respect of the Will or in respect of handwriting expert shall not have any impact on the civil Court, who will decide the issue before it on the basis of the evidence led before it. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 6.6.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench