Civil Revision No.5062 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5062 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.03.2009 General Public through Jagrup Singh .............Petitioner Vs. Shimlo Devi alias Arpana jain ............Respondent Present: Mr. N.G. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate with Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The revision petition is against an order seeking for stay of enforcement of the order issuing succession certificate in an application filed by the petitioner for revocation of the order granting succession certificate. It appears that the petition was filed by the sister of one Fakira Chand for issuance of certificate in relation to alleged outstanding that stood in her name by way of deposit with a nationalized bank. The succession certificate was issued after following the due formalities. 2. The revision petitioner who claims to be a secretary of the Communist Party of India for the State of Punjab applied for revocation stating that the amount, which was in deposit of the deceased person did not belong to her absolutely but it belonged to the Civil Revision No.5062 of 2008 (O&M) -2- party. He sought by means of an application for revocation that the amount shall not be disbursed till the application for revocation of the certificate was considered and disposed of. 3. The Court below rejected the plea on the ground that prima facie the procedure established by law had been followed and the certificate had been issued. At that stage, there was no claim by the petitioner or any other person belonging to the party stating his objections. The Court did not deem it necessary to accept the prayer not to disburse the amount by making an observation with reference to safety of funds by the fact that the amount was to be paid only on furnishing adequate indemnity. In the proceedings for issuance of succession certificate the title to the amount, which is covered is itself never a point for adjudication. As a matter of fact, Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act states that no decision rendered by any Court, no part upon any question of right between the parties shall be held to bar the trial on the same question in any suit or in any other proceedings between the same parties. While the law sufficiently protects the rights of persons who claim the amount as belonging to them, there is no need to fetter the normal consequences of the issuance of certificate. The order passed by the Court below is not illegal or improper in any way to be inflicted with interference in a Court of revision. 3. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) March 18, 2009 JUDGE Pankaj*