A succession certificate can be revoked under Section 383(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, only if it was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or concealing material facts from the court.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE application jointly filed by the revision petitioners and the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Section 372 of the India Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act's was registered as Misc. Case No. 31 of 1986 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. In the said case the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 were impleaded as the opposite parties. Bichitrananda Lenka (opp. party No. 1), Sachidananda Lenka (petitioner No. 1) and Ajaya Kumar Lenka (opposite party No. 2) were sons of late Baikuntha Nath Lenka; Kabita Kumar Lenka (petitioner No. 2) was the widow of Bijaya Lenka, a pre-deceased son of Baikuntha Nath Lenka. Smt. Annapurna Lenka, Ananda Kumari Lenka and Gundicha Kumari Lenka (opp. parties 3, 4 and 5) were the widow and minor daughters respectively of late Jachindranath Lenka, another predeceased son of late Baikuntha Nath Lenka. On consideration of the case of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 3-12-87 held that the applicants and the opposite parties are the heirs of late Baikuntha Nath Lenka and as such have interest in the properties left by him, particularly the deposit of Rs. 10,000/ - in the Gopalpur Post Office in the five years scheme bearing No. 1618510, the deposit of Rs. 18,001. 20 in the S. B. Account No. 1112223 and Rs. 291. 83 in the U. Co. Bank bearing Account No. 1031. He further held that the applicants are entitled to 4/5th of the entire amount and the opp. parties to 1/5th of it. On the statement made by opposite party No. 1 Bichitrananda Lenka on oath that he is the elest son of late Baikuntha Nath Lenka and is entitled to get the succession certificate permitting him to withdraw the 4/5th share of the applicants, the learned Subordinate Judge ordered that the succession certificate be issued in favour of Bichitrananda Lenka (petitioner No. 1 before him) permitting him to withdraw 4/5th share of the deposited amount given in the schedule of the application. It appears from the order dated 6-2-65 that a sum of Rs. 1123. 50 which was deposited in the Court was permitted by the Court to be withdrawn for preparation of succession certificate. Long thereafter the revision petitioners filed the application dated 4-8-89 purportedly under Section 333 of the Act and Section 151, C. P. C. , registered as Misc. No. 25 of 1989 with the following prayer:"under the circumstances the petitioners pray that the Misc. Case may be allowed and the order dated 3-12-87 passed in Misc. Case No. 31/86 may be modified to the effect that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 may withdraw their 1/5th share out of the deposit made by late Baikuntha Nath Lenka and in the order portion Succession Certificate be issued in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Bichitrananda Lenka, son of late Baikuntha Nath Lenka of village Gopalpur, P. S. Sadar, District Cuttack to withdraw 4/5th share of the deposited amount" be corrected excluding the share of the present petitioners, opp. Party No. 1 may be directed not to withdraw the share of the present petitioners. Necessary direction may be given to the present petitioners to withdraw their 1/5th share each. "the question of maintainability of this application was considered by the learned Subordinate Judge and by the impugned order he rejected the application as not maintainable.

( 2 ) ON perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Subordinate Judge held the application to be not maintainable mainly on two grounds : that no relief has been sought by the petitioners for revocation of the certificate and the averments in the petition also do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 383 of the Act. The Court further observed that the petition was filed merely for correction of the errors appearing in the order passed in Misc. Case No. 31 of 1986 and since the said order was passed considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no clerical or arithmetical error arising out of accidental slip, th