Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF RAVINDER SINGH-01, DISTRICT JUDGE – 03,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
MCA DJ No. 23/2025
Nirmala Devi
W/o Late Sh. Devi Singh,
R/o F-256, F Block (School Block),
Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi ...Appellant
Versus
Sh. Mahesh Chand (through LRs)
Smt. Sadhana
Shri Rakesh Chand,
Sh. Anil Kumar,
All sons of Late Pandit Shiv Charan,
R/o 2950, Katra Khushi Rai,
Kinari Bazar Delhi
Also at 2461, Chipiwara, Delhi-11006 ...Respondents
Date of institution : 26.11.2025
Date on which reserved for order : 13.12.2025
Date of decision : 15.12.2025
ORDER
1. Appellant filed this appeal under Section 384 of Indian Succession
Act read with Order 32 Rule 8 CPC, 1908 read with Section 44 of Indian
Evidence Act against the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Ld. ACJ-
cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East), KKD Courts, Delhi in Execution No.
46022/2016, titled Mahesh Chand (through LRs) Vs. Nirmala Devi.
2. Appellant/JD stated that she filed an application under Section 214
of Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as I.S.A) for rejection of
MCA DJ No. 23/2025 Nirmala Devi Vs. Mahesh Chand Page No. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
execution petition stating that LR of DH Smt. Sadhana who is not the
decree holder, has no right to file the execution petition without
permission of District Judge or in absence of the succession certificate, as
LRs of any DH can only file execution after getting the succession
certificate. DH- Mr. Mahesh Chand has expired in 2010 and he left
behind his three LRs i.e. Smt. Sadhana, his son & daughter.
3. The application of JD under Section 214 of I.S.A was dismissed by
Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as
impugned order) observing as under:-
9. I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and I concur with
the submission of Ld counsel for the DHs that Section 214 will
only come to play when there is a pre-exisiting liquidated sum of
money due upon the JD. The present case was the suit of
possession and damages and it was not for the recovery of any
liquidated sum of money. The damages which were sought by the
DHs was also not a liquidated sum of money and hence Section
214 of Indian Succession Act will have no bearing on the
maintainability of the present execution petition.
10. Apart from this, Order 21 Rule 15 CPC clearly states that in
case of joint DHs, any DH may file the execution petition on his
behalf and on behalf of others unless the decree imposes any
condition of this sort. The decree as well as judgment have been
perused and they do not impose any condition as aforesaid.
11. In view of the aforesaid reason, the application is dismissed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that this appeal has been
filed under Section 384 I.S.A but same is not maintainable as under
Section 384 I.S.A, an appeal is to be filed for granting, refusing, or
revocation of a certificate granted under Part X of I.S.A.
5. On the other side, Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that this
appeal is maintainable before this Court, in view of conjoint reading of
Section 384 & 388 (2) of I.S.A. In support of his arguments, he relied
MCA DJ No. 23/2025 Nirmala Devi Vs. Mahesh Chand Page No. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
upon
Monika Yadav Vs. Aakash Singh and others: neutral citation no.
2023:AHC: 225913.
6. The present appeal has been filed under Section 384 Indian
Succession Act, which is read as under:-
384. Appeal.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, an
appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a District Judge
granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under this Part, and the
High Court may, if it thinks fit, by its order on the appeal, declare
the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the
District judge, on application being made therefore, to grant it
accordingly, in super session of the certificate, if any, already
granted.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) must be preferred within the
time allowed for an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of1908).
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and to the
provisions as to reference to and revision by the High Court and as
to review of judgment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), as applied by section 141 of that Code, an order of a
District Judge under this Part shall be final.
7. In
Monika Yadav (supra), an appeal preferred under Section 384
(1) I.S.A before Hon’ble High Court as Ld. Civil Judge rejected the
appellant’s application under Section 372 of I.S.A for succession
certificate and Hon’ble High Court has observed that the appeal would lie
to the District Court and not to the High Court by observing in paragraph
no. 34 as under:
“ In the case at hand, the order having been passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) having been invested with the power to
exercise the function of a District Judge under Part X, the proviso
to sub- Section (2) of Section 388, would be attracted and an
appeal from the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
which is the inferior Court, would lie to the District Judge, and not
to the High Court.
8. The fact which are not in dispute that Smt. Sadhana- one of LRs of
MCA DJ No. 23/2025 Nirmala Devi Vs. Mahesh Chand Page No. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
DH Mr. Mahesh Chand who has filed the suit for possession, mesne
profit and an amount of Rs. 10,800/- against the JD and the said suit was
decreed vide order dated 25.04.2009. JD preferred the appeal but it was
dismissed in the year 2016. In between, DH Mahesh Chand expired in the
year 2010. The LRs of JD came on record during the appeal.
9. The JD filed the application before the executing court under
Section 214 I.S.A which does not fall in Part X of I.S.A for which appeal
is allowed under Section 384 I.S.A as held in
Monika Yadav (supra) by
Hon’ble Court in paragraph 7, held that
The provision relating to an
appeal against an order granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under
Part X, is provided under Section 384
10. In view of above, the present appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
11. Since the appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable, so the
application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also
disposed of as such.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Ld. Executing Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Ravinder Singh - I)
on 15th Day of December, 2025 District Judge-03, Court No.206, N/B,
East District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
MCA DJ No. 23/2025 Nirmala Devi Vs. Mahesh Chand Page No. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --