Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25490 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 71 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vibha Sarin Opposite Party :- Estate Late Ajay Sarin And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite the name of Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, as learned counsel for the respondents having been printed in the cause list. 2. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 115 C.P.C. assailing the order dated 19.09.2024 whereby in proceedings for grant of succession certificate (under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 an application for impleadment preferred by the private respondent no. 2 has been allowed. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that she is the wife of Late Ajay Sarin and she has instituted proceedings seeking succession in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased.In such proceedings, it is only the petitioner who was the sold legal heir, hence, there was no requirement to implead any other person. 4. It is urged that an issue has been raised by the private respondent to indicate that Sri Ajay Sarin was not male but a female. 5. It is further stated that in order to delay the proceedings, initially, the father of the private respondent namely Vikas Sarin had instituted a suit seeking succession which later came to be not pressed. 6. It is also urged that in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the father of the private respondents had also moved an application for impleadment but since he expired, the said application was not pressed and the fresh application came to be filed by the private respondent no. 2 which by means of the order impugned has been allowed. 7. It is urged that while allowing the application for impleadment, the Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error, hence, for the said reason, the order impugned dated 19.09.2024 is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 8. It is also urged that that the application for impleadment was moved under Order 1 Rule 8 (a) C.P.C. whereas the said provision was not applicable which rendered the application bad and could not have been entertained. 9. It is also urged that certain documents were filed by the petitioner to indicate that Sri Ajay Sarin was the husband of the petitioner and they both had a joint bank account wherein the name of the petitioner and her late husband was indicated and this clearly reflected the fact that since there were no children of Ajay Sarin, hence, the petitioner being the wife was the sole legal heir and there was no requirement to implead the private respondents. 10. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and after perusing the material on record, this Court finds that it is the case of the petitioner that an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was initiated by the petitioner which came to be registered as Case No. 335 of 2019. In the said case, the petitioner had impleaded the estate of late Sri Ajay Sarin and there was no other respondent. 11. It could not be disputed by the petitioner that at the time of the admission of the said case before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, a paper citation was issued inviting objections. 12. The record further reflects that it is in furtherance thereof that initially an application for impleadment was moved by Sri Vikas Sarin which admittedly was not pressed as before the said application could be considered, Sri Vikas Sarin had expired. 13. The other application which has been allowed by the impugned order was filed by the private respondent no. 2 wherein it was stated that the private respondent no. 2 was the real nephew of late Sri Ajay Sarin. 14. It will be relevant to notice that the proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act is of a summary in nature. The Court while considering the grant of succession is not required to enter into the merits or complicated questions of title or succession. 15. In terms of Section 373 (3), the Succession Court is required to ascertain that who is the best title holder in whose favour, the succession can be granted. The purpose of issuing a succession certificate is not to decide dispute inter se between the parties rather a succession certificate only entitles the holder to collect the debts from the third parties and as far as the third parties are concerned, they are obligated to handover the debts or securities to such holder and they are indemnified prevented from any third party action. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the matter is yet to be considered on merits and merely an application for impleadment has been allowed and the fact remains that the person who has moved the application for impleadment is none other than the real nephew of the deceased. 17. Whether any right devolves on him or to the petitioner and whether the deceased was a male or female as there is a contest in this regard, the same is the subject matter to be considered by the Court on merits, however, no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which may persuade this Court to interfere in the order dated 19.09.2024. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench