IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised when an alternative remedy is available, particularly in succession matters.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner Smt. Rupali Baglary Dutta has put to challenge the correctness of judgment and order dated 05.04.2014, passed in Misc (S-C) Case No.30/2012 by the learned District Judge, Nalbari, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2014, the learned District Judge, Nalbari, has issued Succession Certificate in favour the respondent No.1 and five others, in respect of the pensionary dues of late Hara Kanta Dutta, who was an employee of the Public Health Engineering Department, Karbi Anglong, Diphu.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, is adumbrated herein below:-

“The respondent No.1 Smt. Pratima Dutta is the wife of late Hara Kanta Dutta, who was serving in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department, Diphu Rural W/S Division, Diphu. He died intestate and after his death on 14.10.2011, the petitioner herein had filed a petition for granting succession certificate before the District Judge, Nalbai in respect of debt and securities amounting Rs. 3,51,791/ of her deceased husband. Upon the said petition, the District Judge, Nalbari has registered a case, being Misc Case No. (S-C) 30/2012, and thereafter, vide impugned judgment and orders dated 05.04.2014 had granted succession certificate in respect of 1/6th share Rs. 3,51,791/.”

4. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No.1 Smt. Pratima Dutta has filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the learned District Judge, Nalbari, stating that her husband Hara Kanta Dutta died intestate on 14.10.2011 leaving behind her and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as his legal heirs. Mr. Borah further submits that the dues in respect of which the succession certificate was sought for, was lying in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Karbi Anglong, Diphu and in view of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, only the Court of learned District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resides at the time of his death, or if at that time he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate under the Indian Succession Act. Mr. Borah further submits that the respondent No.1 knowing fully well that her deceased husband had another wife, namely, Smt. Rupali Baglary, had willfully not made her party in the aforesaid proceeding and no notice was issued and on that count, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Nalbari, suffers from manifest illegality, as he has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. Mr. Borah has also referred the following decisions in support of his submission:-

(i) Chief Gereral Manager (IPC) Madhya Pradesh Power Trading CompanyLimited and Another vs. Narmada Equipment Private Limited, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 548;

(ii) Mohd Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 327;

(iii) Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 319;

(iv) Seth Chand Ratan vs. Pandit Durga Prasad (D) By LRS and Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 399;

5. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 submits that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as alternative remedy is available for the same. Secondly, Mr. Choudhury submits that as per Assam Pension Manual, only the first wife i.e. the respondent No.1 is entitled to the pensionary d