1 D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 44/2008 (Santosh Versus Bheru Lal & Others) Date of Order :: 22nd February, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, counsel for the appellant None present for the respondents None appears for the respondents despite service. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act for obtaining an amount of Rs. 22,000/- of the State Insurance Policy of the deceased Ganga Ram, father of the appellant. The District Judge, Bundi allowed the application vide order dated 25th July, 2006 and held that the deceased had executed a Will in favour of the appellant and on account of that Will, the appellant was entitled to receive the amount of State Insurance Policy. It was also held that the fact that respondent no.1 was given in adoption could not be proved by him. It was directed that on deposition of the prescribed fee, the 2 Succession Certificate be issued in favour of the appellant. The order impugned dated 25th July, 2006 passed by the District Judge, Bundi has been challenged by way of Civil Misc. Appeal, which was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2823/2006 – Bheru Lal Versus Smt. Santosh & Others. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 14th September, 2006 without issuing notices to the respondents, allowed the appeal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon careful perusal of the order impugned dated 14th September, 2006, without expressing any opinion on the merit, as per the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that without issuing notice, and affording opportunity of being heard to the opposite party, no prejudicial order can be passed behind the back of the appellant – respondent, thus, in our considered view, the order impugned dated 14th September, 2006 deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the same is hereby quashed 3 and set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant – respondent along-with other respondents. 4. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (K.S. RATHORE),J. DK/-