THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.1535 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed Succession O.P.No.549 of 1995 in the Court of the District Judge, Vizianagaram for grant of succession certificate. It was pleaded that the first appellant is the wife of late A.Seshachala Sastry and appellants 2 and 3 are their children. Sastry was said to have been employed as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department. The O.P. was filed in respect of monthly pension for one year at the rate of Rs.1500/- and G.P.F. amount of Rs.25,000/-. The appellants pleaded that the first respondent styled herself as the wife of late Sastry and respondents 2 and 3 as their children and made claim for the estate of late Sastry. The O.P. was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 22.09.1998, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act. Sri V.Rajagopal Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, had urged several contentions. He submits that the appellants have proved their succession to late Sastry and that the learned trial Court has dismissed the O.P. on technical grounds. He further submits that some of the observations made by the trial Court are self-contradictory and that the appellants deserve to be treated as legal heirs of late Sastry. Though the respondents are served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The subject matter of the O.P. is just a sum of Rs.43,000/- representing the service benefits of late Sastry. To prove their case, the appellants examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and filed Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were filed. This Court would, certainly, have dealt with the matter in detail, but for the fact that for the past ten years, during which the O.P. was pending, there did not exist any interim order to prevent the withdrawal of the amount, which is the subject matter of the O.P. It is difficult to expect that the amount remained with the employer. The employer was not made as a party. In all probability, the amount may have been withdrawn by the respondents, on account of there not being any order of stay. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.08.2009 kdlz