This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.89 passed by Mr. H. Nongbrum, learned District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in S.C, Misc. Case No. 44 ( T )/89 and S. C. Misc. Case No. 53 ( T )/89. 2. The dispute is between the mother-in-law and daughter-in law over the custody of a Maruti car bearing registration No.MLK-7004 One Ramesh Saigal, son of the petitioner and husband of the opposite party, was the owner of the said Maruti car. He having found dead due to drowning in the Ward's Lake Shillong, Police registered an U. D. Case No. 64 of 1988 and thereafter the unnatural death C. R. Case No. 69 of 1988 was registered in the Court of Smti C. Lamin, Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills. The Maruti car of Ramesh Saigal, having found near the lake on the date of his death, was seized by the Police. Srimati Prakash Saigal, the mother of the deceased Ramesh Saigal, approached the Court of the learned Additional Duputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in whose Court the U. D. C. R. Case No. 69/8 8 was registered, for custody of the Maruti car left by her son. Srimati C. Lamin, learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Kbasi Hills, who is also the Sessions Judge, in respect of tribal areas of East Khasi Hills District, by order dated 5. 4. 89 granted the prayer of the petitioner Srimati Prakash Saigal for fresh jimma of the car on depositing Rs. 50,000/-as security for the car. The petitioner thereafter deposited Rs. 50.000/- and took jimma of the said vehicle No. MLK 7004. The opposite party Srimati Neeru Saigal impugned the said order dated 5. 4. 89, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner granting, jimma of the vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing security of Rs. 50,000/- in this Court in Civil Revision No. 9 ( H ) of 1989. This Court by order dated 9.5.P9, disposed of the petition without interfering with the order passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The opposite party Neeru Saigal filed an application in the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong under section 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities, left by her husband late Ramesh Saigal. The opposite party Neeru Saigal filed an application in the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong under section 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities, left by her husband late Ramesh Saigal. In the schedule of debts and securities left, amongst others the Maruti car was also included, showing the value thereof at Rs. 80,000/-. After receipt of the applica­tion, S.C. Misc. Case No. 53 ( T )/89 was registered in the Court of Mr. H. Norighrum, learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge, Shillong. The opposite party Srimati Neeru Saigal thereafter filed an application on 13.6.89 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C.P.C. in the case for succession certificate, alleging that the petitioner Srimati Prakash Saigal, in whose custody the Maruti car No. MLK-4001 was given by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner by order dated 6.4.89, was misusing the vehicle, changed the colour and damaged the vehicle substantially and that if the vehicle continued to be in the custody of Smti Prakash SaigaJ, it would result in irreparable loss and made the following prayer- "In the premises it is prayed that your honour would be pleased to pass an appropriate order of injunction requiring the opposite party to produce the Maruti Car No. MLK 7004 before the Court, and after proper assessment of the damages etc. pass further order restoring and/or giving the car in the custody of the petitioner pending final disposal of the S/C Case, and granting such reliefs as your honour would deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. " 3. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge there upon issued notice to the petitioner Srimati Prakash Saigal to show cause as to why the prayer for interim order made in the aforesaid application dated 13. 6. 89, should not be allowed. After receipt of the notice the petitioner entered appearance and filed objection on 16.8.89, denying the allegations contained in the application dated 13. 6. 89. In the said objection the petitioner specifically pointed out that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C.P.C. was not maintainable. After the objection was filed, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge fixed 28.8.89 for hearing. Ultimately hearing was concluded on 7.11.89 and 28.11.89 was fixed for order. It appears from the order sheet that on 15. 11. After the objection was filed, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge fixed 28.8.89 for hearing. Ultimately hearing was concluded on 7.11.89 and 28.11.89 was fixed for order. It appears from the order sheet that on 15. 11. 89 a written argument was also filed on behalf of the objector-Srimati Prakash Saigal the petitioner in the instant case, and the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge although fixed 8. 11. 89 for order no order was passed on 28.11.89. On 2. 12. 89 this petition has been moved in this Court at Shillong Bench by the petitioner on the allegation that although 28. 11. 89 was fixed for order, no order was passed on that date, nor any order was passed on the following dates. Even on 1.12.89 upto 4. 30 P. M. no judgment and order was delivered by the Court. However, on the night around 6. P. M. ( 1. 12. 89 ), the Officer-in-charge of Shillong P. S. went to the house of the petitioner and took away the Maruti vehicle MLK-7004, from her custody and handed over the same to the custody of the opposite party Srimati Neeru Saigal. A seizure list was handed over by the Police while taking the car from the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure 6 to the petition. The contents of the seizure list is as follows :- IS.I. N. Roy of Laitumukhrah B. H. do hereby seized the following vehicle today on 1.12.89 at 6 P.M. f.om the possession of Sri Dinesh Saigal s/o Lt R. K. Saigal of Laitumukhrah, Shillong (Prakash Hotel) in connection with the order No. S/C Misc Case No. 41 (T) of 1989 passed by District Judge, Shillong dated 1. 12. 82 in presence of the below signed witnesses the seizure is made at Laitumkhrah", Prakash Hotel- Description of the vehicle 1 ( one ) Maruti 800 car maroon colour ; Registration No. MLK 7004. ...... " 4. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition the following statements were made which were sworn as true to the knowledge of the petitioner- "6. That your petitioner states that your petitioner along with her counsel kept on enquiring from the Bench Assistant of the Court of the learned District Judge from 28.11.89 onwards still 1.12.89 upto 4-30 P.M. whether any order is being passed or not and also about a date of fixing it for order. 7. That your petitioner states that your petitioner along with her counsel kept on enquiring from the Bench Assistant of the Court of the learned District Judge from 28.11.89 onwards still 1.12.89 upto 4-30 P.M. whether any order is being passed or not and also about a date of fixing it for order. 7. That, however, sadly enough the learned District Judge when the counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner had left the Court premises after 4-30 P. M. on 1.12. 89, behind the back of the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 1. 12. 89 and the same was executed at about 7 P. M. by the Police who seized the vehicle and handed it over to the opposite party." The petition was moved at Shillong on 2. 12. 89 and on perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court felt if necessary to go into the records of the case and accordingly directed the Registry to send special messenger for the records. But as the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge was on leave and the record was in his custody, it could not be sent to this Court. Under the circum­stances, on the basis of the statements made in the petition and the apparent illegality committed by the Police in violation of the order dated 6. 4. 89 giving the vehicle in jimma of the petitioner after obtaining security of Rs. 50,000/-, a Rule was issued and ad interim direction was issued to the Officer-in-charge, Laitumukhrah P. S. to restore the possession of the vehicle No. MLK 7004 to the custody of the petitioner. The Officer-in-charge in compliance of the direction restored the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner. The opposite party thereafter entered appearance and filed an application for vacating the ad interim order. In the course of hearing, it was decided to finally dispose of the petition after hearing both the parties. The opposite party thereafter filed affidavit-in-opposition and the petition was heard. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition the opposite party has stated that the judgment and order was delivered in the Court on 1. 12. 89. But from the order sheet it appears that the learned District Judge on 1. 12. 89, passed the following order- "The order is ready today and it is been written separately and alienated herewith the record. 5. In the affidavit-in-opposition the opposite party has stated that the judgment and order was delivered in the Court on 1. 12. 89. But from the order sheet it appears that the learned District Judge on 1. 12. 89, passed the following order- "The order is ready today and it is been written separately and alienated herewith the record. The Maruti Car MLK 7004 is to be restored to the lawful custody of the petitioner. The Nazir of the Court shall cause seizure of the Car immediately with the help of Court P. I/P. S. I. in order to prevent further damages and deterioration of the Car and the same be handed over possession/custody to the petitioner." From the order, it does not appear that the order was delivered in open Court. 6. I have heard Dr. M. K. Sharma assisted by Mr. S. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Sen assisted by Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party. Dr. Sharma has submitted that the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The car is neither a debt nor security, so no succession certificate can be granted in respect of the car over the application for getting succession certificate for the car was misconceived. Admittedly, Remesh Saigal died childless and the widow mother, the petitioner, and the widow, the opposite party are natural heirs/successor to the properties left by Ramcsh Saigal in equal share. So, in the Maruti car which valued at Rs. 80,000/-, the petitioner has 50% share and that she has deposited Rs. 50,000/-to the Court of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner as condition for getting jimma of the vehicle. Even if the application for succession certificate for the car was maintainable the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C. P. C. was not at all maintainable and this was also held by the learned Court below. However, the learned Court below arbitrarily made out a third case in favour of the opposite party, invoking power under section 192 of Succession Act and passed the impugned order directing that the vehicle given in jimma of the petitioner by a competent Court, should be seized by the Nazir even with the help of the Police and after seizure the same should be restored to the custody of opposite party. The learned counsel has further submitted even in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C. P. C. the opposite party made prayer for requiring the petitioner to produce the Maruti car before the Court and after proper assessment of the damage etc. the Court was to pass proper order restoring or giving the car to the custody of the opposite party. But the learned Court below, illegally granted the relief which was not prayed for in the application which was not maintainable. No case was pleaded far less made out that the vehicle was in the illegal and unlawful custody of someone. 7. Mr. S.K. Sen, learned counsel for the opposite party have not dis­puted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 'Maruti Car' is neither debt nor security and no succession certificate can be granted in respect of the car. Mr. Sen. however, has submitted that the learned Court has passed the order in exercise of power under section 192 of Succession Act and the order passed under section 192 of Succession Act, cannot be challenged and as such the revision petition against the order passed in exercise of power under section 192 of Succession Act, is not maintainable. Mr. Sen has also submitted that an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed by the opposite party Smti Neeru Saigal, after this Court in order dated 9. 5. 89 observed that Smti Neeru Saigal might approach civil Court for appropriate remedies in respect of the property in the suit. The opposite party having already filed an application for succession certificate in view of the observation of this Court, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed in the case for succession certificate for restoration of c study of the Maruti car to the opposite party. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as for the opposite party. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party it is apt to quote section 192 of the Indian Succession Act.- "192. Person claiming right by succession to property of deceased may apply for relief against wrongful possession. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as for the opposite party. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party it is apt to quote section 192 of the Indian Succession Act.- "192. Person claiming right by succession to property of deceased may apply for relief against wrongful possession. (1) If any person dies leaving property, movable or immovable, and person claiming a right by succession thereto, or to any portion thereof may make application to the District Judge of the district where any part of the property is found or situate for relief, either after actual possession has been taken by another person, or when forcible means of seizing possession are apprehended. (2) Any agent, relative or near friend or the Court of Wards in cases within their cognizance, may, in the event of any minor, or any disqualified or absent person being entitled by succession to such property as aforesaid, make the like application for relief." It is apparent that section 192 of Indian Succession Act can be invoked only when the property of the deceased is in wrongful possession of some other person. Admittedly, the vehicle was seized in connection with U. D. C. R. Case No. 69/88 and was in the custody of the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong which Court on an application made by the petitioner, the mother of the deceased, gave jimma of the vehicle on depositing Rs. 50.000/-as security in that Court. The petitioner was a mere Jimmadar of the vehicle and if she caused any damage to the vehicle proper step for the opposite party was to approach the Court of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills for protection of her interest in respect of the vehicle. The vehicle was in the custody of the Court which was seized in connection with a criminal case and it cannot be held that it was in wrongful custody. The petitioner was nothing but a Jimmadar and the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi H111& could at any time cancel the jimma and took custody of the vehicle to the Court. As such, condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 192 of Indian Succession Act was totally absent. The petitioner was nothing but a Jimmadar and the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi H111& could at any time cancel the jimma and took custody of the vehicle to the Court. As such, condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 192 of Indian Succession Act was totally absent. Besides, there was no case for invoking jurisdiction under section 192 of Succession Act nor any prayer was made in the application-under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, yet the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong arbitrarily exercised power suo motu and passed the impugned order. The impugned order in the exercise of power under section 192 of Succession Act, tends to interfere with the proceeding of the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Sessions Judge, East Khasi Hills. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills could be interf­ered with by the High Court and not by the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Judge, Shillong. The impugned order is therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 9. The records of the case disclose a very unhappy state of affairs. As already observed, 28. 11.89 was fixed for passing order and no order was passed on that date and no date was fixed for passing order in future. When the Court could not deliver the order on the date fixed, it was proper on the part of the Court below to fix another date for delivery of order so that the parties might know the date on which the order would be delivered. However, on 1. 12. 89 an unusual order was passed in the order sheet which does not disclose as to whether order on that application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was passed or not, although the impugned order was signed on 1. 12. 89. The opposite party her application dated 13. 6. 89 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, prayed for directing the petitioner to produce the Maruti car before the Court and the Court after proper assessment of the damage as alleged, was to pass appropriate order including an order of restoring custody of the car to the opposite party. 12. 89. The opposite party her application dated 13. 6. 89 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, prayed for directing the petitioner to produce the Maruti car before the Court and the Court after proper assessment of the damage as alleged, was to pass appropriate order including an order of restoring custody of the car to the opposite party. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and District Judge, Shillong, however by the impugned order directed the Nazir to seize the Maruti car from the custody of the petitioner immediately, even with the help of -Police and to restore possession thereof to the opposite party, namely, Srimati Neeru Saigal. Giving such extra ordinary expeditious relief to opposite party for which the opposite party did not make any prayer, is contrary to judicial norms. 10. Not only that, it appears from the documents filed in petition and affidavit-in-opposition that a copy of the order recorded in the order sheet, was forwarded to the Nazir by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, suo motu on 1. 12. 89 itself for implementation and that thereafter an application was made by the P.I. on 1.12.89 after 4.15P.M. before the Court below stating that the Nazir had already left office and thereupon the District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, passed an order on the body of the application, directing that the execution of the order might be done by the Police and accordingly the order was executed at about 6 P. M. of 1. 12. 89 itself by the Police. All these appear to have been done in hot haste suo motu by the learned District Judge-cum- Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, inasmuch as, from the records no application appears to have been made by the opposite party, who was the petitioner in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, for passing such extraordinary orders. Unusual procedure followed by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for implementation of the order in favour of the opposite party Srimati Neeru Saigal in hot haste on 1. 12. 89 itself, without any prayer made by the opposite party, is reprehensible. Such action on part of a Court gives rise to misgivings in the minds of litigants. Unusual procedure followed by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for implementation of the order in favour of the opposite party Srimati Neeru Saigal in hot haste on 1. 12. 89 itself, without any prayer made by the opposite party, is reprehensible. Such action on part of a Court gives rise to misgivings in the minds of litigants. A Court should not only be fair, impartial, detached to interest of litigants before passing judgment and order as well as implementation thereof, but should also appear to be fair, impartial and detached. In the instant case, the party against whom the order was passed and implemented in hot haste suo rnotu, had been in the dark. The application for interim relief was filed on 13.6.89. If the matter could await for more than 6 months, what impelled the learned Judge to take unusual and extraordinary steps to implement the order of 1.12.89 in the afternoon of that day itself in hot haste, is beyond comprehension. 11. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances appearing from the rec­ords and documents annexed to the petition and affidavit-in-opposition, I am constrained to observe that the learned District Judge-cum-Addit­ional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, has displayed unusual interest in favour of the opposite party Smti Neeru Saigal for reason best known to him-which is reprehensible and calls for administrative scrutiny. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1. 12. 89 is set aside. I make no order as to costs. However, I make it clear that it would be open for the opposite party to approach the Court of Mrs. G. Lamin, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Sessions Judge, East Khasi Hills, Shillong for cancellation/modification or alteration of the order, giving the vehicle in jimma to the petitioner.