HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.2905 of 2013 13th October, 2025 Swami Maheshwaranand Saraswati ………..Petitioner Versus Swami Purnand Saraswati and another ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the State/respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.09.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Haridwar in Misc. Case No.2 of 2010, Swami Purnanad Saraswati Vs. Administrator General and others, whereby learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application Paper No.44 kha filed by the petitioner for summoning original will from the respondent and further for quashing the order dated 22.11.2013, passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.153 of 2013. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner has applied for succession certificate in respect of fixed deposit belonging to Swami Prakashanand Saraswati (deceased) on the ground that he is the only disciple of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. 3. The said case was registered as Misc. Case No.64 of 2008, Swami Maheshwaranand Vs. Administrator General and others. The said misc. case 1 was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Haridwar by reason of a judgment and order dated 13.02.2009, whereby the succession certificate was granted to the petitioner. The succession certificate was further extended by the learned trial court in Misc. Case No.93 of 2009 vide order dated 30.11.2009. 4. Subsequent to this an application has been moved by respondent no.1 for revocation of the said certificate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which was registered as Misc. Case No.2 of 2010, Swami Purnand Saraswati Vs. Administrator General and others. 5. In the said Misc. Case No.2 of 2010, an application 44 kha has been moved by the petitioner Swami Maheshwaranand Saraswati in the trial court requesting for a direction to the Swami Purnand Saraswati to produce the original will dated 14.07.1996. The said application was opposed by the respondent – Swami Purnand Saraswati stating therein that there are various litigations pending between the parties in the State of Punjab and the original will is filed in any one of the cases being contested between the parties. 6. It is on these averments the trial court has rejected the said application, vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2013. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order filed a revision petition before the learned District Judge, Haridwar which was decided on merits by the learned Judge saying that the original will is not required at this stage and dismissed the revision petition vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2013. 7. It is feeling aggrieved by both the judgment and order 22.11.2013 and 30.09.2013 the petitioner has 2 moved this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. 8. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the succession certificate has already been granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore in order to revoke such certificate some concrete material should have been possessed by Swami Purnand Saraswati and by merely filing an application on the ground that some will dated 14.07.1996 was executed in his favour by Late Swami Prakashanad Saraswati, the certificate which has already been granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be revoked only on the basis of the photocopy of the alleged will. 9. He further asserted that the respondent did not reply to the averments made in the application properly and it is merely said that the original will may have been filed in any of the cases pending between the parties in the State of Punjab. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought on record the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 (annexure 1 to rejoinder affidavit), wherein the claim based on the same alleged will dated 14.07.1996 by producing a photocopy of the said will has been rejected by a court in the State of Punjab. 11. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Court in Punjab disbelieved the theory of the respondent-Swami Puranand Saraswati and rejected his claim disbelieveing the aforesaid will dated 14.07.1996 and stating that the existence of the will was not proved. 3 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that at this stage will is not required and the same would be required at the stage when the proceedings for the succession certificate would be open after revocation of the succession certificate. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the application 44 Kha has wrongly been rejected by the trial court vide judgment 30.09.2013 as well as revision petition has been rejected is also improper and illegal by judgment and order dated 22.11.2013. 14. At least for the purpose of making an application for revocation of the succession certificate already granted in favour of the petitioner, there must be some concrete, cogent and admissible evidence with the respondent no.1 for moving a revocation application. If he based his claim on a will dated 14.07.1996, the original will or certified copy of the will dated 14.07.1996 should have been required, therefore, this Court finds illegality in the judgments and orders impugned. 15. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. The judgments and orders dated 30.09.2013 and 22.11.2013 are hereby quashed. The respondent no.1 shall file the certified copy or the original copy of the will before the trial court in the proceedings of Misc. Case No.2 of 2010, Swami Swami Purnanad Saraswati Vs. Administrator General and others. 16. Since the proceedings of Misc. Case No.2 of 2010 is pending since long it is expected that the trial court shall decide the case expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of production of certified 4 copy of this order. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.10.2025 SK 5