Fake will probated

Subsequent to institution of partition suit in CJSD Court, existence of an alleged will claimed by one op. No such will produced/placed in Civil Court, even on demand. Vaguely informed that the will has been submitted in appropriate court for probate. Later it transpired that months after filing of the Civil Suit, a Test Case in DJ Court was filed. The will recorded as annexed was not found in Court, instead the second order directed for submission of original will. No steps were taken for issue of notices to ops. The plaintiff in cs, an op in the Test Case intervened suo-moto n demanded submission of the will. After 2yrs from date of institution the will when presented was found to have been executed using 3stamp papers purchased by the propounder, but EXECUTED ON A DATE TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE STAMP PAPERS. Petition for cognizance u/s 195 r/w sec 340 Cr.P.C. rejected as "Premature", awaiting further evidence. The impossible fact that a document could be executed two days before 'existence' of the papers used was not addressed under plea that 'any paper can be used to write a will', thereby leaving the dates unchallenged and admitted. Probate proceedings carried on. Two attesting witnesses confirmed the date of execution as it was. The propounder, who was the beneficiary, executor, custodian, was the purchaser of the stamp papers did not at all thereafter in proceedings refer to the will at all. The DJ granted probate of will, holding non annexation as not fatal, raising suspicious circumstance at drop of hat to be ignored holding the date matter as it had not been confronted to the propounder in X examination. The fact on record exist that the propounder did not evidence the will for probate, later getting it done by one of the wittnesses, and avoided recall or answer to Q u/o.11.R.4. Question is whether the court is right in assuming the FAKE document as will and continuing the test case without satisfactory explanation on how stamp papers used were available for execution two days before purchase, as unless this is resolved it can only be treated as FAKE and not a 'will'(document) to be tested under I S Act?. Hence, are the proceedings not defective in substance and 'Just Cause' for revocation?. Has the court not failed the duty u/o.32A.R.5 in the instant case ? Should the obvious FRAUD revealed from the 'construct' of the document itself, be not dealt with by the inherent powers (u/s 151) of the court , ie without restricted/limited to ISAct ? Should the court not have inquired u/o 32A Rule 5 and in face of admitted position of the impossible claim of execution of document on non existent paper, dismissed the Test case at that time ?