SUDERSHAN RAM BHASIN Vs. KAMLA BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi dated 31/1/2001 thereby disposing of an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the petitioner herein praying for stay of the proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession, Act for revocation of Succession Certificate granted on 8/9/1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Delhi in favour of the petitioner and Smt. Anita Sabharwal. The application was made on the ground that a suit for partition filed by the respondent herein was pending in the Civil Court and the question in the said suit and the proceedings for revocation of the Succession Certificate was identical and, therefore, the proceedings were liable to be stayed till the disposal of the partition suit.

(2.) Learned trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that provisions of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code can be invoked when the proceedings are in the nature of suit and since the proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of a Succession Certificate cannot be equated to suit so the said provision had no application. Additional reasoning given by the trial Court is that the Court of the Additional District Judge seized of the partition suit has no jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. The learned trial Court also refused to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for staying the proceedings before it.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. It is not disputed from the side of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of Succession Certificate cannot be deemed to be suit and, therefore, strictly and legally speaking, the provisions of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code are not attracted for staying the said proceedings in view of pendency of the earlier suit for partition. His contention, however, is that having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the partition suit filed by the respondent is based on the averment and allegation that the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the deceased Shri Bakshi Ram Bhasin and was entitled to succeed his Estate is also the basis of the application for revocation filed by her under Section 383 Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, to avoid conflicting/discrepent findings it is a fit case where the proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act should be stayed till the disposal of the partition suit. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon two decisions; the first being of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Vijay Laxmi and others v. Smt. K. Simachalan alias Simachslsn; AIR 2001 Jhar 23 wherein the Court expressed the following opinion :-