Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable where succession proceedings exclude a legal heir and proceed ex parte.

The petitioners, sons of Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah, applied under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for a succession certificate concerning their deceased father’s debts and securities.

In Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021, they represented that they were the deceased’s only legal heirs, although the respondent— their sister and daughter of the deceased—was also a legal heir.

The succession certificate was initially granted to the petitioners on 30 November 2021.

The respondent subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to set aside the order granting the certificate.

The Additional District Judge allowed the application and revoked the succession certificate by order dated 13 November 2024.

The petitioners challenged that order under Section 115 CPC, contending that Order IX Rule 13 was unavailable because the respondent had not been impleaded in the succession proceedings and that she should instead have sought revocation under Section 383 of the Succession Act.

1. Whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable to set aside an order granting a succession certificate where a legal heir was not impleaded but the proceeding was treated as ex parte against that heir.

2. Whether the respondent was required to pursue only the statutory remedy of revocation under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

3. Whether the Additional District Judge acted correctly in setting aside the succession certificate on the ground that the petitioners suppressed the existence of a legal heir.

Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs applications for succession certificates, while Section 383 provides for revocation of such certificates on specified grounds.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC permits an ex parte order to be set aside where the affected party was not duly served or was otherwise prevented from appearing; the provision may also apply in succession proceedings where a legal heir was excluded and the matter proceeded ex parte against that heir.

The Court relied on Deepesh Maheshwari & Anr. v. Renu Maheshwari & Ors., 2023 Supreme (SC) 332, which recognised the maintainability of an Order IX Rule 13 application in comparable succession proceedings involving an omitted legal heir.

Suppression of a material legal heir and a false assertion regarding the status of heirs vitiate the order granting the succession certificate.

The High Court found that the respondent was indisputably the deceased’s daughter and therefore a legal heir who ought to have been disclosed and impleaded in the succession proceedings.

The petitioners’ assertion that they were the only legal heirs was materially false, and the trial court was justified in finding deliberate concealment.

Although Section 383 provided an independent remedy for revocation, that remedy did not exclude the respondent’s right to seek setting aside of an order passed ex parte without affording her an opportunity of being heard.

Applying Deepesh Maheshwari, the Court held that Order IX Rule 13 CPC was also maintainable in these circumstances.

The trial court’s order therefore disclosed no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.

It held that an omitted legal heir could invoke Order IX Rule 13 CPC to challenge the ex parte grant of a succession certificate, notwithstanding the separate remedy under Section 383 of the Succession Act.

The revision petition was dismissed, the order setting aside the succession certificate was upheld, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.