Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010136432026 2026:GAU-AS:10154 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/314/2026 SHRI AMIT KR BORA SON OF LATE JAMINI BORA, RESIDENT OF MATHURA NAGAR, DOWN TOWN, P.S. DISPUR, DISTRICT KAMRUP M, ASSAM VERSUS SMT KRIPALINI BORA AND ANR DAUGHTER OF LATE DHARMANANDA BORA, RESIDENT OF BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI 09, DISTRICT- KAMRUP M, ASSAM 2:SMT MRINALINI BORA DAUGHTER OF LATE DR NALINI KUMAR BORA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 6 FLAT NO 104 GOLDEN WOODS ANANDA PINAKI PATH ZOO ROAD TINIALI P.S. GEETANAGAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM GHY- 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MS N J BEGUM,MR. A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 24.07.2026 Heard Mr. S.H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc (J) Case No. 63/2026 whereby the prayer of the petitioner in an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking issuance of Successions Certificate to the petitioner separately by modifying its earlier order dated 20.11.2025, passed in Succession Case No. 61/2023 was rejected. 3. It appears that by the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2025, the leaned Court had issued a Succession Certificate jointly in favour of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, all of whom were parties in the said succession proceedings. The petitioner was also the petitioner in the aforesaid succession case, just as the present respondents were the respondents therein. 4. It also transpires that the said two respondents have not come forward to obtain the succession certificate by paying their share of the Court fee, because of which the petitioner also could not obtain the succession certificate, inasmuch as the petitioner would have to pay the entire Court fee including share of the respondents. 5. It is reflected in the impugned order that the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 had submitted that as per instruction received, the respondent No.1 has no money to pay the Court fee and as such she had no objection, if Page No.# 3/4 the prayer of the petitioner was allowed. Similarly, it was also recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No.2 also has no objection to the said prayer as she did not have the capacity to contribute towards the Court fee. 6. However, the learned Court below was of the view that Section 372 (3) or Section 373 (4) of the Indian Succession Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, declined the modification sought for by the petitioner. 7. It is trite that the rules of procedure are the handmaidens of justice and in the facts and circumstances of present case, it is evident that despite the Court having issued Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner, due to the incapacity of the respondents to contribute their shares towards the Court fee, the petitioner has been unable to obtain the successions Certificate which has definitely caused prejudice to the petitioner, moreso, as the petitioner has no wherewithal to remedy the situation without the assistance of the Court. 8. It is preciously for the purpose of resolving situations of this nature that the inherent powers of the Civil Court have been preserved under Section 151 of the Court of Civil Procedure in order to advance the cause of justice. Moreover, there is no bar under any provision of the C.P.C or the Indian Succession Act for the Court to grant separate Succession Certificate, if the facts and circumstances so justify. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. 10. The learned Court below is directed to issue the separate Succession Certificate in respect of the debts of the deceased to the present petitioner proportionate to her share therein. Page No.# 4/4 11. This Criminal Revision Petition, stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant