IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 663 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 11, 2010. Jagdish Chand ..Petitioner. Versus. Balvinder Kaur and another ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? . No For the Petitioner (s): Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Amicus curiae. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. exercising delegated powers of District Judge, Sirmaur under the Indian Succession Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt.Balvinder Kaur widow of Chet Ram alias Kuldeep Kumar filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking a succession certificate to the effect that she was entitled to pension and other benefits payable on account of death of her husband Chet Ram 2 who was employed as Constable No.015231671 in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The undisputed facts are that the deceased was employed with the CRPF. According to the respondent she was his widow and therefore filed the petition for grant of succession certificate. Notice to the general public was issued and the father filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to be impleaded as a party respondent in the said petition. According to the father he alone was entitled to get the benefits payable after the death of his son and the widow was not entitled to this amount. This application has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) who has come to the conclusion that the nominee is not entitled to the benefits and is only entitled to collect the amount and that the rights of the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be affected by the nomination made by the deceased. The question which arises for decision is; could the learned trial Court have decided the merits of the case while deciding an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC? 3 In fact the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was totally mis-conceived. The father could have straightway filed objections. In a petition filed 372 of the Indian Succession Act the Judge is required to issue notice of the application to any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, such notice should be sent. The notice has to be displayed on the conspicuous part of the Court house and published in such a manner as the Judge may deem fit. Normally, a notice is published in the newspaper and notice is given to the general public. This by itself means that any member of the public can come and oppose the application. There is no question of being impleaded as a party in the petition. The objections of such person may be found to be true or incorrect. They may be well-founded or perverse. But the Judge exercising powers under Section 372 has no right to say that the objector will not be heard in the proceedings. Once the party has a right to be heard in the proceedings he also has a right to lead evidence. This application has been decided without any evidence being led. If the father was contesting the claim of the widow an issue had to be framed and thereafter evidence had to be led and the matter decided on 4 merits. It may be true that in some cases the end result may be the same but this does not mean that the party can be deprived of its right to lead evidence. An objector, as a matter of right, has to be impleaded as a respondent and permitted to contest the application. The petitioner may file objections which shall be decided in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. I place on record my appreciation to the assistance rendered by Sh.Ankush Dass Sood, Amicus Curiae. August 11, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV