JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, against the order of the District Judge, Manipur, dated 10-1-1958 directing the issue of Succession Certificate to the respondent. The appeal was filed on 26-6-1960 and the appellant has stated in the appeal memorandum that he came to know of the order of the District Judge in the last week of May, 1960. But he has not mentioned the actual date in May when he came to know of it and he wants the delay to be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. In order to condone the delay under Sec. 5, the appellant must satisfy the Court as to the exact date when he came to know of the order of the District Judge, dated 10-1-1958 and he must I further explain the reason for the delay of every day after he came to know of it. That he has not done in the present case, as he has failed to mention the exact date when he came to know of the order. This appeal memo and the application to excuse the delay were filed only on 6-6-1960. The appellant has made no attempt to explain the delay for the period between the date of his coming to know of the order and the date of filing of the appeal. On that ground alone, this appeal has to be dismissed as time-barred. 2. Then, again the appellants learned Advocate stated in the course of arguments that a villager in the said village had filed an application for revocation of the Succession Certificate under Sec. 383 of the Indian Succession Act and the said application was dismissed and that it was after its dismissal that he filed the present appeal. It follows from this that the appellant must have been aware of the said proceedings which meant that he was aware of the order of the District Judge earlier than May, 1960. Thus, I am not satisfied that this is a case where the delay can be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Coming to the merits, the appellant cannot succeed in this appeal and the proper procedure for him is clearly to file a suit to establish his right. Thus, I am not satisfied that this is a case where the delay can be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Coming to the merits, the appellant cannot succeed in this appeal and the proper procedure for him is clearly to file a suit to establish his right. The respondent filed the application for Succession Certificate claiming that after the death of his brother Taorem Chaoba Singh, who was the Shebait of the deity Laipakhangba in Changangei village, the respondent became the Shebait and that he was therefore entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Government to the said deity as ex-gratia compensation for damage to the standing crops on account of requisition during the last war of the patta land of the deity. The respondent stated in the said application that the deceased Chaoba Singh has got no other family or relative except himself and so he did not make any other person a party to the application. Notice of the application was served as required under Section 373(1)(b) of the Succession Act. No rules for the publication of such notice have been made by this Court. The District Judge therefore directed that notice must be affixed on the Notice Board of the District and Sessions Court and must be served on Chingangbam Kulabidhu Singh, Secretary of the Changangei Seva Dal and that one notice must be affixed in a conspicuous part of the residence of the deceased. Notices were accordingly served. It was after this that he took the evidence of the respondent and directed the issue of the Succession Certificate on 10-1-1958. But the certificate is still in the custody of the Court and has not been issued to the respondent. Perhaps, it was because one of the villagers filed the application under Sec. 38-3 of the Succession Act for revocation of the certificate. That application was dismissed by the District Judge. No appeal has been filed against the said order. Then the present appellant who was not a party in the Succession Certificate proceedings has filed the present appeal against the order granting the certificate claiming himself to be the Shebait of the deity after the death of Chaoba Singh. 4. That application was dismissed by the District Judge. No appeal has been filed against the said order. Then the present appellant who was not a party in the Succession Certificate proceedings has filed the present appeal against the order granting the certificate claiming himself to be the Shebait of the deity after the death of Chaoba Singh. 4. Now Sec. 384 of the Succession Act, under which this appeal is filed says that subject to the other provisions of part X of the Succession Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order granting, refusing or revoking a certificate and that 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 therefor, to grant it accordingly, in supersession of the certificate, if any, already granted. Thus, the powers of the High Court in appeal under Sec. 384 are not co-extensive with the powers of a appellate Court under tire C.P.C. It is clear from a reading o£ the Section that unless there was a contest before the District Judge between two or more persons as to who should be given the certificate and in the contest the District Judge on evidence before him decided as to who should get the certificate, the High Court cannot interfere in appeal. There was no such contest before the District Judge and nobody contested the grant of the certificate after the service of the notice as required under Sec. 373. Thus, the only evidence before the District Judge was the evidence given by the respondent. What the appellant now wants is that certain documents which he seeks to file in this Court should be received in evidence and the case should the sent back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing regarding the rival claims of the respondent and the appellant after setting aside the order of the District Judge, granting the certificate to the respondent. There is no such power of remand vested in the High Court under Sec. 384 of the Succession Act. The High Court can only declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted where there were rival claimants before the District Judge and that must be done on the evidence adduced before the District Judge. 5. There is no such power of remand vested in the High Court under Sec. 384 of the Succession Act. The High Court can only declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted where there were rival claimants before the District Judge and that must be done on the evidence adduced before the District Judge. 5. Where there was no such contest in the District Court and where the proceedings to obtain a certificate were defective in substance or the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case or where the certificate was obtained by untrue allegations of fact as contended by the appellant in appeal, the proper procedure for the appellant is to file an application under Sec. 383 of the Succession Act for revocation of the certificate. There is no period of limitation for such an application as in the case of an appeal. When this was pointed out to the appellants learned Advocate, his argument was that under Sec. 383 he can only get the certificate revoked at best and he cannot get a certificate himself and hence he has come by way of appeal. It seems to me that his remedy has been mis-conceived by the appellant and that he should first apply to get the certificate revoked and if he succeeds in that then he should file an application himself for the grant of a certificate to him. He cannot come by way of appeal when he was not a party at all before the District Judge. Further See. 387 of the Succession Act makes it clear that no decision under part X upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit. Thus, the appellant could file a regular suit for the establishment of his right. It is not possible for me in this appeal without any evidence on the side of the appellant to hold that he should be preferred for an issue of a certificate as against the respondent. Thus, even on the merits the appellant has no case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with, the costs of the respondent. Appeal dismissed.