JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

Petition herein is for setting aside impugned orders dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) and 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby appeal filed by petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge, was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts, first as pleaded in the revision petition. Petitioners, being widow and mother of deceased Hardeep Singh, filed application under section 372 of Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 for grant of succession certificate, qua his assets as he died intestate on 28.06.2013 in a roadside accident at village Adampur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondents to contest the application and ultimately, vide order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P- 3), Succession Certificate in respect of sum of Rs.22,65,941/- was issued in favour of petitioners in equal share subject to furnishing their indemnity bonds in the sum of Rs.25 lakh with one surety in like amount. However, interest as claimed by the petitioners was not allowed vide impugned orders and hence the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners argues that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), while exercising the powers of District Judge under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , has rightly granted the succession certificate with respect to the amount, which was due from respondent No.2-Muncipal Council, Sirhind, towards the deceased. However, learned Civil Judge, while passing order dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-3) committed grave error of law and fact by not granting interest @ 12% per annum to petitioners, who are legal heirs of the deceased.

4. Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents, as no prejudice would be caused to them. Notice to respondents is thus dispensed with.

5. Impugned order is premised essentially on the understanding of learned Additional District Judge that the appeal had since been filed under section 96 of CPC, which was not maintainable in view of section 384 of Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925;it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same and accordingly dismissed it. For ready reference, relevant extract of the impugned order passed by learned First appellate Court is reproduced herein below:

"2. A preliminary question that arises with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the appellants conceded that present appeal was not an appeal under section 96 of CPC and was rather an appeal under the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 because the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 was passed in a petition filed under the Indian Succession Act for the grant of a succession certificate.

3. It would be expedient to recall the bare provision of Sections 371, 384 and 2 (bb) of India Succession Act, 1925 :

Section 371

The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided 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 this Part.

Section 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 suppression of the certificate, if any, already granted.

(2) An appeal under su