D.N. Upadhyay, J. - (1.) This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.6.2008 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Pakur in connection with Miscellaneous (Revocation) Case No. 02 of 2006, whereby succession certificate granted ex parte in connection with Succession Case No. 3 of 1999 in favour of appellant was revoked. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that no revocation petition was required to be entertained by the learned District Judge against an ex parte judgment passed in connection with Succession Case No. 3 of 1999. If the respondents were aggrieved by the said judgment, they should have preferred appeal before appropriate forum. The impugned judgment does not satisfy any of the grounds mentioned u/s 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Besides above, it is contended that respondent No. 2- Sushila Hembram had deserted her late husband Francis Murmu and she had also filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 176 of 1992 in the Court at Asansole, West Bengal for seeking divorce on the ground of impotency of her husband, but due to non-prosecution, said suit got dismissed. Then Sushila Hembram got herself married with another man named as Dhiren Sharma. Even then the appellant had made Sushila Hembram party to the succession application, but she did not appear and the Succession Case No. 3 of 1999 proceeded ex parte. After grant of succession certificate in favour of appellant, respondent No. 1, the railways authority filed a petition for revocation of succession certificate granted in favour of the appellant and the application was registered as Miscellaneous (Revocation) Case No. 2 of 2006. In course of enquiry, a document purported to be nomination paper vide Ext. 1 was brought on record and the railways authority have admitted that deceased Francis Murmu had nominated his son Ajay Anand Murmu as his nominee. As a matter of fact, Ext. 1 is not a nomination form, rather it was an application for cancellation of the name of the nominee. According to the appellant, this document was created by Sushila Hembram with the connivance of the railways authority. Had this nomination was available, the appellant should not have been asked to obtain succession certificate. The appellant is the person, who had performed last ritual of deceased Francis Murmu and all the formalities to handover the railway quarters was done by him. Neither Sushila Hembram nor Ajay Anand Murmu appeared at the time of death of Francis Murmu. The learned Additional District Judge has not considered all these aspects in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment, which is highly erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that the appellant has filed an application for grant of succession certificate by concealing the fact and names of legal heirs of late Francis Murmu. It is true that suit for divorce was filed, but it was dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore marital tie between Sushila Hembram and her deceased husband remained intact. The appellant knowing full well concealed the present and correct address of Sushila Hembram with an intention to obtain ex parte order. The notice issued against Sushila Hembram was not published in any newspaper and the unserved notice was accepted by the court, which was incorrect. If she was not 3. available at the address mentioned by the appellant, step for substituted service of notice should have been taken, but it was not done. Furthermore, the name of respondent No. 3- Ajay Anand Murmu was available in the nomination record, but the appellant deliberately concealed the said fact. Ajay Anand Murmu whose name was appearing as a nominee, being son of late Francis Murmu, was not made party in the original application, filed by the appellant. Since there was concealment of fact and the legal heirs of late Francis Murmu were not party, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly revoked the succession certificate granted in favour of the appellant.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (W), Chitranjan Locomotive Works has submitted that on production of succession certificate by the appellant, the records of Francis Murmu was verified and then it was detected that Ajay Anand Murmu was named as nominee by the deceased, but he was not made party in Succession Case No. 3 of 1999. Since this fact came to the knowledge of the railways authority, petition for revocation was presented before the court and it was registered as Miscellaneous (Revocation) Case No. 2 of 2006 and the learned Additional District Judge after considering the materials on record passed impugned judgment.;