Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010184472026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/423/2026 SMTI. PALLAVI LAHKAR BORA AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE PRASANTA BORA, R/O HOUSE NO. 09, CHANDRA BHAWAN, K.R.B. ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI- 09, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2: NISHANT BORA S/O LATE PRASANTA BORA R/O HOUSE NO. 09 CHANDRA BHAWAN K.R.B. ROAD BHARALUMUKH P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI- 09 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3: MISS BIPANSHY BORA D/O LATE PRASANTA BORA R/O HOUSE NO. 09 CHANDRA BHAWAN K.R.B. ROAD BHARALUMUKH P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI- 09 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 4: SMTI. KARABI BORA NEOGI WIFE OF DEBARSHI NEOGI RESIDENT OF SAMAGAM PATH HATIGAON CHARIALI GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSA Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS DIBYAJYOTI BORA AND ANR S/O SHRI JAYANTA BORA, RESIDENT OF R.K.C. ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUMUKH, GUAWAHTI-09, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:JAYANTA BORA S/O LATE JADUNATH BORA RESIDENT OF R.K.C. ROAD BHARALUMUKH P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUMUKH GUAWAHTI-09 KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, MR.T YADAV,MS. V RAI,JYOTISH DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 31.08.2026 Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in P.T.S. No.06/2015. 3. Late Aruna Bora had executed a Will bequeathing her properties in favour of her grandson Dibyajyoti Bora, the minor son of her son Jayanta Bora. Sri Prodip Kr. Das was appointed the sole Executor of the said Will. Page No.# 3/4 4. After the death of Aruna Bora, her son Jayanta Bora being the next kin of his minor son Dibyajyoti Bora, had filed a petition in the court of Addl. District Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) seeking Probate. 5. Jayanta Bora had claimed that his son Dibyajyoti Bora was born on 05.11.1997 at Marawari Maternity Hospital. He submitted a Birth Certificate to that effect, issued by the Government of Assam. 6. Accordingly, Dibyajyoti Bora filed a petition under Order 32 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and claimed that he had attained majority and has decided to elect to proceed with the suit. 7. The respondents objected to the said petition stating that the PW.1 Jayanta Bora though admitted that his son was born at Marawari Maternity Hospital, but the certificate dated 26.12.2014 issued by the Marawari Maternity Hospital showed that Dibyajyoti Bora was born on 05.11.1995, not on 05.11.1997 as claimed by Jayanta Bora. 8. The learned trial court allowed the prayer of Dibyajyoti Bora on the ground that his petition under Order Order 32 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable and therefore, his prayer was allowed. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), the present revision petition has been filed. 10. The only ground for filing this revision petition is that while passing the impugned order dated 07.08.2026, the learned trial court did not elaborately discuss the matter. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 12. Originally, the probate application was filed by Jayanta Bora, the father of Dibyajyoti Bora because at that time Dibyajyoti Bora was a minor. Now, he has become a major and he has elected to proceed with the case on his own by removing Page No.# 4/4 his father. This Court is of the opinion whether Dibyajyoti Bora was born in the year 1995 or 1997 is immaterial in the present case. The only thing material in this case is that Dibyajyoti Bora has already attained majority and has elected to proceed with the case on his own. The respondents have unnecessarily raised a dispute, which is not a dispute at all. The trial court has correctly allowed Dibyajyoti Bora to proceed with the case on his own by removing his father Jayatna Bora. The trial court is not required to make any unnecessary discussion in this matter. The trial court was right while passing the impugned order. No jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below. 13. This Court is of the opinion that the instant civil revision is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant