ORDER S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a Plaintiff's application u/s 115 of the CPC against an order of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur setting aside a decree for rent passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur and remanding the case with a direction that the Plaintiffs should be given time to obtain letters of administration. The suit for the recovery of rent was filed by one Smt. Anandi Devi. The Plaintiff Applicant Rameshwar Lal Gaur is her adopted son and the other Applicants are the minor sons of Rameshwar Lal Gaur. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Anandi Devi died and the present Applicants applied for being substituted as her legal representatives on the basis of a Will which made them the legatees of Anandi Devi as regards the house for which the rent was claimed in the suit. The Applicants produced a copy of the Will by which Smt. Anandi Devi left one house to Rameshwar Lal Gaur's wife and the house in dispute to him and his sons. The application was not opposed and Rameshwar Lal and his sons were duly substituted. The Defendant Respondent filed an objection that the Applicants were not the legatees of Smt. Anandi Devi and that in any case a decree could not be passed in their favour for the recovery of a debt due to the deceased without the production of letters of administration. They relied on Section 214 of the Succession Act. It is not necessary for me to consider the other pleas which were rejected by both the courts below. 2. The trial court held that it was not necessary for the Applicants to produce any Letters of Administration and decreed the suit. In revision the Additional District Judge disagreed and held that Section 214 required the production of a certificate before any decree could be passed in favour of the Applicants. He set aside the decree but remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that the Applicants should be given an opportunity to produce letters of administration before a decree is passed in their favour. 3. Mr. N.A. Kazmi for the Applicants argued that the view of the Additional District Judge is erroneous as no letters of administration were required in this case. 3. Mr. N.A. Kazmi for the Applicants argued that the view of the Additional District Judge is erroneous as no letters of administration were required in this case. He argued that Section 214 does not apply to this case at all as this is a suit for recovery of rent and rent is not a debt within the meaning of Section 214. He relied on a decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Bihari Lal v. Wasundara Bai AIR 1956 MB 35 in which it was held that the word "debt" in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mesne profits. But the judgment itself indicates that this view is based on a misreading of the text. Sub-section (2) of Section 214 provides "The word 'debt' in Sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes." The learned Judge in Bihari Lal v. Wasundara Bai (supra) after quoting this sub section remarked "It is clear therefore that the word 'debt' as used in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mesne profits". The error in this interpretation--If I may say so with respect--is manifest on the face of it, for it overlooks the words "payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes which qualify all the three rent, revenue and profits. 4. The error in this interpretation--If I may say so with respect--is manifest on the face of it, for it overlooks the words "payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes which qualify all the three rent, revenue and profits. 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 214 runs thus: "No court shall-- (a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the efforts of the deceased person or to any part there of, or (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except of production, by the person so claiming, of-- (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the "deceased", or (ii) a certificate granted u/s 31 or Section 32 of the Administrator Genera's Act, 1913 and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, or (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827 and if granted after the First day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein. 5. This sub-section prohibits a court to pass a decree for the recovery of any debt due to a deceased person in favour of any person who claims that he is entitled to the effects of the deceased person on succession, unless before obtaining the decree he produces any one of the documents specified in Clauses (i) to (v) of the sub-section. The purpose of this restriction is partly to safeguard the position of the debtor against whom the decree is claimed by the successor of the deceased creditor and partly to protect the interests of those who may be interested in the estate of the deceased. The debtor is protected against any subsequent claims based on the same debt if the person claiming a decree produces a probate or a succession certificate or any other document specified in the sub-section. The interests of persons who claim to be interested in the deceased creditor's estate are similarly protected by compelling the prospective decree holder to obtain letters of administration etc. The interests of persons who claim to be interested in the deceased creditor's estate are similarly protected by compelling the prospective decree holder to obtain letters of administration etc. and thereby compelling him to initiate proceedings which will give these persons an opportunity to oppose his claim if they so desire. A third and very important purpose is to prevent multiplicity of litigation. If a person claiming the right to obtain a decree for the recovery of debt due to a deceased creditor on the basis of succession is awarded a decree without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Sub-section (1), the only course open to a rival claimant will be to challenge this decree and there may be as many suits as there are rival claimants. For these reasons Section 214 imposed conditions on a prospective decree holder. 6. It is however not necessary that the prospective decree-holder must fulfil the conditions under Sub-section (1) before filing the suit. The material words are "no court shall pass a decree...except on the production, by the person so claiming, of..." The sub-section does not enjoin that a court shall not entertain a suit for the recovery of a debt due to a deceased creditor, but only that it shall not pass a decree for the recovery of this debt unless the condition is fulfilled. It follows that a Plaintiff filing a suit for a debt due to a deceased person on the basis of succession may fulfil the condition by producing the material document at any time before the decree is passed. In my opinion, the words "No court shall pass a decree" should not be interpreted too harshly or technically. I think the words of the section permit a Plaintiff to produce the material document even after the pronouncement of judgment in his favour provided he does it before the decree is finally prepared. This view derives support from the observations of Shah, J. in Bai Dahi Vs. Ghanashyam Haridas, AIR 1956 Bom 102 , in which the prospective decree holder was permitted to file a succession certificate before the decree was sealed. Also see Abdul Majid Vs. Shamsherali Fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285 . 7. For these reasons I agree with the learned Additional District Judge that Section 214 applies to the present suit. Ghanashyam Haridas, AIR 1956 Bom 102 , in which the prospective decree holder was permitted to file a succession certificate before the decree was sealed. Also see Abdul Majid Vs. Shamsherali Fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285 . 7. For these reasons I agree with the learned Additional District Judge that Section 214 applies to the present suit. But I think the learned Judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he issued a direction to the trial court "to allow reasonable time to the Plaintiffs to obtain letters of administration." He had no power to restrict the Plaintiffs' choice of producing any one of the five classes of documents specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 214. To put it more clearly, he could not compel the Applicants to produce letters of administration if they are entitled, under the law to produce a succession certificate. The direction of the learned Judge must be modified accordingly. 8. I dismiss this application, but amend the direction given to the trial court in these terms: The Court shall give an opportunity to produce any of the documents prescribed in Clauses (i) to (v) of Sub-section (1) within reasonable time. On the production of the material document, the Court shall pass the same decree which it passed on 6-5-1963. If the Applicants fail to produce the material document within a reasonable time, their suit shall be dismissed. In interpreting the words "reasonable time" the Court will be reasonably indulgent to the Applicants and in any case it will not hold them responsible for any delay in the proceedings before the Court hearing the application for succession certificate or letters of administration, which is not due to the fault of the Applicants. 9. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs of this revision.