IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.139 of 2009 Salimunnisa @ Shakila Bano & Ors Versus Most.Shakila Bano@Mahrunnisa & Ors. ---------------------------------- 6 21-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 21-11-2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Muzaffarpur, in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1999, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners for revocation of the succession certificate earlier granted in favour of the opposite party, has been dismissed. The petitioners in this revision application are claiming themselves to be the heirs of deceased Abul Hassan and have stated that Abul Hassan had two wives and had sons and daughters from both the wives. It has been stated that the sons and daughters from one wife along with their mother had filed the succession case for grant of succession certificate with regard to the estate left by deceased Abul Hassan, but they had not impleaded another wife and children from her and Abul Hassan and obtained the succession certificate behind their back by concealing this material fact. The petitioners filed the revocation 2 petition on the basis of which Miscellaneous Case No.20 of 1999 had been initiated. The opposite parties appeared and challenged the status of the petitioners in the revocation case and asserted that they were not the widow and sons and daughters of Abul Hassan. After considering the evidence of both the parties and their respective submissions, the court below has come to the finding that the petitioners before it in Miscellaneous Case No. 20 of 1999 are not the widow and sons and daughters of Abul Hassan and accordingly rejected the revocation petition. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the learned court below has not properly considered the evidence adduced by the parties and there is gross misappreciation of evidence and as such the findings recorded by the court below are vitiated. Refuting the contention on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there is no illegality in the order and in any view of the matter, there is no scope in the revisional jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the findings of fact, even if the same is erroneous. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in D.L. F. Housing etc.Co Vs. Sarup Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 2324. It has been 3 further submitted that in any view of the matter the findings recorded by the learned court below are also not illegal because under the provision of section 373 of the Indian Succession Act the court below was bound to grant the certificate to the person, who, prima facie was found entitled thereto. It is no more res integra that an order passed in a succession certificate proceeding has no bearing upon the right, title and interest of the parties if a suit is filed before a competent court for the said reliefs because such proceedings are only summary proceedings. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal and the court below has committed error of jurisdiction in passing the same. It goes without saying that the petitioners will always be at liberty to institute a suit for declaration of their status as well as the right, title and interest in the estate left behind by the deceased Abul Hassan. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)