IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FA NO. 31 of 2009 Sushri Manchal Bala …Appellant. Versus Smt. Mangla Devi ……Respondent. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. 13th February, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. In this case, the Registry has already raised an objection that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 388 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as appeal would lie before the District Judge. 2. The relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have been perused. The Registry has correctly raised the objection. Since the order, which has been challenged, has been passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, which is a Court inferior to that of the District Judge, the Appeal would lie to the District Judge under Section 388 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 3. Since no writ petition evidently lies in this Court and an appeal can only be filed before the District Judge, this Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to pursue her remedy before the appropriate Forum. 2 4. It is made clear that the dismissal of this appeal will in no manner prejudice the rights of the appellant to file First Appeal before the District Judge. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.2.2009 Rathour