JUDGMENT K.M. Agarwal, J. 1. This is objector's appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (in short, the "Act"), against grant of succession certificate to the respondent in respect of certain amounts payable to the deceas-Budha Bahadur. 2. Budha Bahadur was working as Section Guard in Korea Colliery of the South Eastern Coal-fields Ltd. He died on 28-10-1988. After his death, his father Amar Sai and brother Pooran Sai applied for succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act in the Court of Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, Circuit Baikunthpur, District Sarguja. It was registered as Succession Case No. 2 of 1989. The father Amar Sai died during pendency of the proceedings and his name was struck out. The appellant came forward to object the grant of succession certificate to the respondent by claiming herself to be the widow of the deceased. Her claim was rejected and succession certificate was directed to be issued in favour of the respondent by the impugned order dated 29.8.1990. Being aggrieved, she has preferred this appeal. 3. It is necessary to mention here that the appellant had also applied for succession certificate by filing an application under Section 372 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Manendrgarh, District Sarguja. It was registered as Succession Case No. 7 of 1989. No one appeared to raise objection and, therefore, by order dated 26.9,1989, succession certificate was directed to be issued to the appellant in respect of the amounts payable to the deceased. When the respondent came to know about this order, he filed an application for recalling the order in favour of the appellant on the ground that she was not the widow of the deceased Budha Bahadur. This application is said to be pending. 4. It is unfortunate that the appellant did not disclose in her evidence dt. 23.8.1990 as N.A.W. 1, or file a copy of the order dt. 26.9.1989 passed in her savour in Succession Case No. 7/1989, though she had disclosed in paragraph 5 of her objection dated 28 7.89 about filing of an application for succession certificate with incorrect description of the Court. 23.8.1990 as N.A.W. 1, or file a copy of the order dt. 26.9.1989 passed in her savour in Succession Case No. 7/1989, though she had disclosed in paragraph 5 of her objection dated 28 7.89 about filing of an application for succession certificate with incorrect description of the Court. It was all the more deplorable that Shri S.R. Dohare, the Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur, who heard and decided Succession Case No. 2 of 1989, over looked the possibility of conflicting orders even after noticing the fact that another case for similar relief in respect of the same amounts of the deceased Budha Bahadur was pending in another Court, as would be evident from paragraph 4 of his impugned order. In such a situation I would have ordinarily quashed both of orders passed by the Courts below in Succession Case Nos. 2/89 and 7/89 and remanded the cases with a direction for their simultaneous hearing by one and the same Court. However, I find that in Succession Case No. 7/89 decided on 26.9.89 there was no one to contest the application for succession certificate filed by the appellant, may be due to ignorance of the proceedings: It must not be forgotten that the respondent and his deceased father and brother were tribals, residing in a tribal area. They were illiterates and they might not have read the public notice of application for succession filed by the appellant, published in a daily newspaper. So far as Succession Case No. 2/89 filed by the respondent and his father was concerned, the appellant had derived knowledge of it and accordingly had raised objection. The application was contested and decided after affording the parties opportunity to adduce their evidence. It will be of no use in remanding the case or cases to decide them afresh with fresh evidence and exposing the parties to exploitation resulting from unnecessary delay in disposing of the case or cases for succession certificate in respect of the estate of Budha Bahadur, who died in October 1988. The proper course appears to be to set aside the order dated 26.9.1989 passed in uncontested Succession Case No. 7/89 by the Addl. The proper course appears to be to set aside the order dated 26.9.1989 passed in uncontested Succession Case No. 7/89 by the Addl. District Judge, Manendragarh, in exercise of my suo motu powers and to decide the dispute between the parties with their rival claims for succession certificate in respect of the amount payable to the deceased Budha Bahadur, as set up by them and decided by the Court below in Succession Case No. 2/89. 5. The Court below has rightly found that the appellant was unable to prove that she was ever married to the deceased Budha Bahadur. She admitted in her deposition as N.A.W. l that her father was Sardar Bhagsingh, who was a Punjabi by caste. Her mother was Panika by caste, whereas Budha Bahadur was a Gond by caste. In paragraph 4 of her deposition, she stated that one Baba had performed her marriage with the deceased in a temple at Korea. What was the form of marriage was not disclosed. She deposed that the marriage was recorded in a document prepared in the temple and was with her, but that document was not produced. In paragraph 5, she further admitted that the customary rites or Saptpadi was not performed at the time of the marriage. She never went to the house of her father-in-law and she did not know as to how many brothers and sisters her husband had. In the nomination form also, it did not appear that the deceased had disclosed the name of the appellant as his wife, otherwise there was no reason why she should not have filed or requisitioned the nomination form submitted by the deceased-to his employer. In these circumstances, she was rightly held by the Court below to be not entitled to the succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Budha Bahadur. The photo copy of an L.T.C.. Form alleged to have been submitted by the deceased Budha Bahadur and relied on by the appellant in support of her case was of no evidentiary value because it was not shown to bear the signature of the deceased and was not proved by calling the original either in Succession Case No. 2/89, or in Succession Case No. 7/89. For all these reasons, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. For all these reasons, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-, if already certified. 7. For the reasons stated here-in-above in paragraph 5 of this order, dated 26.9.1989 passed in uncontested Succession Case No. 7/89 by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, is hererby set aside in exercise of my suo motu powers. As a result, the application filed by the respondent for recalling this order, if pending on the date of this order, shall also stand disposed of without any order as to costs to either of the parties to these proceedings.