Failure to implead known minor heirs or appoint guardians vitiates ex-parte succession certificate proceedings.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 applied for a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to claim the retiral benefits of their deceased father, Omprakash Maheswari

The employer (Respondent No. 3) opposed this, noting that official records named Mrs. Malti Maheswari (Appellant No. 2) as the wife

The Trial Court granted the certificate after Malti Maheswari failed to appear

Subsequently, an application under Order IX Rule XIII of the CPC was filed to set aside the certificate, which was rejected by the Trial Court, the District Judge, and the High Court

The courts below reasoned that Malti Maheswari had appeared through counsel in a separate appeal against the grant of the certificate and that Appellant No. 1 (Deepesh), being a minor at the time, was not a necessary party and had not asserted his rights

1. Whether an application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC can be rejected solely because the party appeared in a subsequent appeal against the original decree.

2. Whether a minor heir is a necessary party to succession proceedings and whether a public notice constitutes sufficient service upon a minor legally incapacitated from acting independently.

3. Whether the suppression of material facts and misstatements regarding legal heirs warrants the setting aside of a Succession Certificate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act.

The Court applied Order IX Rule XIII of the CPC, which allows setting aside an ex parte decree upon showing "sufficient cause" for non-appearance

It relied on Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Janglu and Parimal v. Veena to define the primary requirements of service and sufficient cause

Regarding the distinction between an appeal and a remedial application, the Court cited Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, establishing that the scope of Order IX Rule XIII is wider and distinct from Section 96 CPC

Sections 372 and 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, were applied, stipulating that certificates obtained through defective applications or suppression of material facts are liable for revocation

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts' findings were "perverse" regarding the minor appellant.

Since Appellant No. 1 was only 12 years old during the original proceedings, he was legally incapacitated from responding to a public notice or impleading himself

The Court noted that the respondents were aware of the minor's existence yet failed to ensure the appointment of a guardian, a procedural lapse that deprived the minor of an opportunity to be heard

The Court also found the public notice defective as it failed to clearly identify the deceased, Mr. Omprakash Maheshwari

Regarding the merits, the Court identified serious misstatements in the original application, specifically the incorrect description of Appellant No. 2’s marital status, which vitiated the proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act

Finally, the Court clarified that appearing in an appeal does not preclude a party from seeking relief under Order IX Rule XIII if they can demonstrate sufficient cause for their initial absence

It held that the High Court erred in concluding that the minor was not a necessary party and that no prejudice was caused to him

The Court allowed the Order IX Rule XIII application, set aside the ex parte Succession Certificate, and restored the matter to its original number

The parties were directed to appear before the competent court for fresh proceedings, with a direction to dispose of the matter preferably within one year