IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.810 of 2009 MOSTT. SAVITRI DEVI … Petitioner Versus RAJU KUMAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Chitra Gupt Prasad ----------- 2. 22.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition questions the order dated 18.4.2009 passed in Succession Case No. 21 of 1991 pending before Sub- ordinate Judge I, Gaya. By the impugned order the learned Sub-ordinate Judge Ist, Gaya directed the petitioner to adduce evidence on her revocation petition filed by her for revocation of Succession certificate granted in favour of Raju Kumar while disposing of Succession case No.21 of 1991 by order dated 13.3.1992. The petitioner came to know about grant of succession certificate when the authorities, on being approached by her for paying the service benefits in respect of her husband to her who died in harness, directed the petitioner to produce succession certificate from the court concerned. When she filed a petition bearing Succession Case No. 7 of 1992 for issuance of succession 2 certificate, it was brought into her knowledge that succession certificate in respect of the assets of her deceased husband had already been granted to the said Raju Kumar. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the revocation petition under the appropriate provision of law and the court below after discussing the facts and stand of the parties went on to observe that the holder of the succession certificate was an imposter could be held only after holding enquiry and required the petitioner to adduce her evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the settled principle of law two succession certificate cases could be tried together and the petitioner has already adduced her evidence in succession case No.7 of 1992 and the court was completely in error in directing the petitioner to produce evidence in her succession petition bearing No.7 of 1992 or her revocation petition filed in succession case No. 21 of 1991. Learned counsel has placed reliance 3 upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mostt.Biro Devi Vs. Sardar Singh and ors. reported in 1989 P.L.J.R. 1028. I have perused the judgment cited before me specially its paragraph 9 which has been heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraph 9 of the judgment reads thus: “In this application, I need not express any opinion on the merit of the rival claims. When two applications are filed claiming succession certificate in relation to the same deceased, it is only fair that both the applications must be heard and disposed of together, particularly, so when the applicant of one of the applications is not even made a party in the other application. In the instant case, the application filed by respondent no.1 Sardar Singh did not array the petitioner as one of the opposite parties. In may view the grant of the application filed by respondent no.1 rendered infructuous the application filed by the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge granting succession certificate to respondent no.1 should be set aside on this ground alone and the learned Sub-ordinate Judge should be directed to consider on merit both the applications; one filed by respondent no.1 and the other filed by the petitioner.” As may appear from the above, the question of hearing two succession certificate cases was being ordered together only when the two cases were pending hearing 4 and disposal. The facts of the present case as narrated above may indicate that the earlier succession case bearing No.21 of 1991 had been disposed of and a succession certificate had been granted to Raju Kumar rightly or wrongly. So it could not be said that that particular succession certificate case was pending. What was pending in that connection is the revocation petition and as was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, the court was required to hold an enquiry as may appear from the allegations and statement of facts made by the petitioner before the court below seeking revocation of the already granted succession certificate. Thus, the decision cited before me by learned counsel for the petitioner appears completely different and distinguishable on its own special facts. In order to succeeding on a petition of revocation, it is desirable that the petitioner should lead evidence in support of her statements and allegation. The reason could be simple that a right has been created by issuing a succession certificate in favour 5 of a person. It may shift a heavy onus upon the petitioner who has asserted a particular fact so as to seeking revocation of the existing succession certificate to dislodge the grounds which were utilized while granting succession certificate. This could not be done merely by filing a petition or stating that the petitioner had led evidence in a different case. The succession certificate case bearing No.21 of 1991 stands disposed of. If the court finds sufficient material and good reasons for revocation of the succession certificate then only there could be a question of hearing the two petitions. As things stand presently, I do not think directing the hearing of two cases. However, I direct the court hearing succession case no.7 of 1992 to first take up the hearing of the revocation petition on expedition and dispose it of, then hear the succession certificate case filed by the petitioner bearing No.7 of 1992. The revocation petition must be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order and both 6 petitions in five months. While hearing the present revision petition, I came across the fact that Sub- ordinate Judge I, Gaya, was hearing succession certificate cases. It appears that Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act contains a provision for delegating the power to Sub-ordinate Judge by the District Judge for hearing and disposal of the matters which are falling within the original jurisdiction of the District Judge. This arrangement was made while creating new districts or on account of certain exigencies and heavy work load upon the District Judge. Now that new districts have been created by carving new areas out of older ones, it is simply not proper that that delegated powers could be continued in the Officer of the rank of Sub- ordinate Judge. I could direct the Registrar General of the Court to place this matter before the Court so as to issuing necessary direction as regards the jurisdiction of the original court in successions and other matters which fall within the original jurisdiction of the District Judge. 7 This revision petition is dismissed with the above directions. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)