A. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Vijapur in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1964 ordering that the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit should apply for obtaining a succession certificate and produce the same in the suit within 2 months from the date of the order. ( 2 ) SHORT facts leading to this petition are that the opponent bad borrowed on November 26 1957 an amount of Rs. 1100. 00from one Bhurabhai alias Mohanlal Nihalchand who was the husband of the plaintiff. The opponent had executed a pro-note in favour of Bhurabhai Nihalchand which was produced in the suit at Ex. 31. Thereafter the opponent executed another pro-note on November 4 1960 for the amount of Rs. 1374. 00in favour of the petitioner as guardian of her sons Ramesh Mukesh and Mahesh. The consideration of this pro-note was the amount of previous loan of Rs. 1100. 00advanced by Bhurabhai Nihalchand plus interest thereon. Thereafter the opponent executed another pro-note in favour of the petitioner on May 17 1961 The consideration of this pro-note consisted of the loan advanced by Bhurabhai plus the interest till the date of the execution of the pro-note. It is on the basis of this pro-note Ex. 26 that the petitioner had filed the Civil Suit No. 74 of 1964 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Vijapur against the opponent to recover the amount of Rs. 1716-67 P. ( 3 ) THE opponent resisted the suit on various grounds. The opponent denied that he executed the pro-note or that he received any consideration. He also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff could not institute the suit without obtaining a succession certificate as required by sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act. The learned trial Judge tried the issue as to whether the plaintiff could file the suit without obtaining a succession certificate as a preliminary issue and held that the plaintiff should apply for succession certificate and ordered her to produce the same in the Court within two months failing which the suit was to stand dismissed. ( 4 ) MR. The learned trial Judge tried the issue as to whether the plaintiff could file the suit without obtaining a succession certificate as a preliminary issue and held that the plaintiff should apply for succession certificate and ordered her to produce the same in the Court within two months failing which the suit was to stand dismissed. ( 4 ) MR. Shah appearing for the petitioner challenged this order passed by the learned trial Judge and contended that In this case it was not necessary for the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate. The argument was that the petitioner had filed the suit on the basis of the promissory note executed in her favour and that the petitioner did not claim any amount as an heir of her husband and therefore no succession certificate was necessary. Now it is stated in the plaint that the opponent had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on May 17 1961 and that the opponent did not pay the amount thereof The plaintiff had therefore instituted the suit to recover the amount and the Interest on the basis of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant as evidenced by the pro-note. It is evident therefore that the petitioner was not claiming any amount in her capacity as an heir to her husband. The plaintiff was claiming the amount due in her own independent right and on the basis of the contract between the parties thereto. Sec. 214 of the Succession Act 1926 reads as under:-SEC. 214 (1) :-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 effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof 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 on the 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 under sec. 31 or sec. 31 or sec. 32 of the Administration Generals Act 1913 (III of 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 (VII of 1889) or (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1927 and if granted after the first day of May 1889 having the debt specified therein. (2) The word debt in sub-sec. (1) includes any debt except rent revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. The provisions of this section prohibit the Court from passing a decree against a debtor of a deceased for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person. It is clear that the claim contemplated by the section is a claim made by a person in the capacity of and as a legal representative of the deceased creditor. In the present case the suit was based on the specific contract between the parties. It is no doubt true that the initial amount was loaned by the husband of the plaintiff and that was the consideration for executing the pro-note Ex. 26 by the opponent. Under the Indian Contract Act the consideration may flow from a third party. The execution of pro-note Ex. 26 created a novatio between the plaintiff and the defendant and the original contract was substituted by a new one. The petitioner was claiming on the basis of the contract which was executed in her favour and in her own independent capacity and not as an heir of the deceased creditor. It is evident that in these circumstances no succession certificate is required to be produced before the Court in order to enable it to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. According to the trial Court a succession certificate was necessary because the consideration of the pro-note on which the suit was based was the initial amount loaned by the husband of the plaintiff and that the suit of the plaintiff was to recover the said amount loaned by her husband. The trial Court also held that the pronote Ex. 38 was only an acknowledgment of the debt by the defendant. The trial Court also held that the pronote Ex. 38 was only an acknowledgment of the debt by the defendant. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice that the consideration of the contract may flow from a third party. The pro-note Ex. 26 clearly Indicates that it is a promissory note and not an acknowledgment. It is also not correct to say that the suit is filed to recover the amount due to the husband of the plaintiff but the suit is filed to recover the amount due on the basis of the specific contract between the plaintiff and the defendant The provisions of sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act cannot apply to such a case. ( 5 ) NEXT it should also be noted that sec. 214 of the Succession Act prohibits the Court from passing a decree unless a succession certificate is produced in the case. In this case the learned Judge has raised an issue as to whether the plaintiff can institute a suit without obtaining a succession certificate and ordered that the plaintiff should file the certificate within two months and failing to do so ordered the suit to be dismissed. This order is obviously erroneous and contrary to the express provisions of sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act which only requires the production of succession certificate at any time before the decree is passed. ( 6 ) THE result is that in view of the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit in her own capacity as the person in whose favour a pro-note was executed the order passed by the trial Judge requiring the plaintiff to produce the succession certificate is erroneous. I therefore set aside the order requiring the plaintiff to obtain succession certificate and direct that the learned trial Judge should dispose of the suit according to law. ( 7 ) RULE made absolute with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .