Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. Maharajadhiraj Dr. Sir Kameshwar Singh died on 1.10.1962 intestate leaving behind two widows, namely, Maharani Adhirani Rajlakshmi and Maharani Adhirani Kamsundari (appellant). Late Maharaja had no issue. The Senior Maharani Rajlakshmi died on 22.11.1976 at Rambagh Raj Palace in the town of Darbhanga. The appellant, who is the junior Maharani filed an application for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities, detailed in Schedules-A and B of the application. She had earlier filed Succession Certificate Case No. 53 of 1976 but on account of claim preferred by a stranger and other impediments, the said Succession Certificate Case was dismissed for default on 23.8.1980. Thereafter, Taxation matter was decided. There being no impediment under Sec. 370 of the Act, a fresh application was filed in 1995 under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act. No objection was filed from any quarter. Succession Certificate was claimed on the basis that the applicant is the only heir of the deceased Maharani and all the properties, the subject-matter of Succession Certificate Case was inherited by her. The applicant prayed for succession certificate in respect of Schedules-A and B annexed to the application. 2. As stated earlier, no objection was filed resisting the application but surprisingly learned District Judge, Darbhanga by order dated 9.1.1998 rejected the application, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) The applicant had not proved that she alone could have been the heir of late Maharani Rajlakshmi. (b) The applicant had failed to adduce evidence as to whether or not the Maharaja was alive at the time the senior Maharani died. (c) It has not been brought on record as to whether the mother of the husband of the appellant was alive when Maharani Rajlakshmi died. (d) The applicant has not proved that she is the second wife of Maha raja and whether the marriage had taken place before or after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. None of these grounds are legally sustainable. The proceeding was uncontested and all the facts were incorporated by the appellant in her application but it has not been considered by the learned District Judge, and on technical ground, the application has been dismissed. 4. All requirements of Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act has been complied. There is no defect in the application. 5. The proceeding was uncontested and all the facts were incorporated by the appellant in her application but it has not been considered by the learned District Judge, and on technical ground, the application has been dismissed. 4. All requirements of Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act has been complied. There is no defect in the application. 5. Sec. 373 of the Indian Succession Act lays down the procedure for obtaining succession certificate. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 373 of the Act lays down as follows: If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. 6. Here the proceeding was uncontested and it cannot be doubted that the applicant was the best person having prima facie title thereto for grant of certificate. As held in Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Brojendra Sunder Banerjee V/s. Niladrinath Mukherjee AIR 1929 Cal 661, the Court asked to grant the certificate is not even to pronounce whether a certificate is essential or to determine the exact character of the applicants claim. 7. An inquiry to be made is not to be elaborate or lengthy, it is to be in a summary manner though its exact nature will differ from case to case. Vide A.I.R. 1916 Lah 277. 8. In this Court, notice of appeal was issued in the newspaper. Pursuant to the notice, Subheshwar Singh, nephew of Late Maharaja appeared but no counter-affidavit was filed. His Counsel Sri Shardanand Jha has submitted that since the earlier Secession Certificate case was dismissed for default, the present case which was filed after fifteen years was barred by res-judicata. This contention is not sustainable. It has been held in Poma Koer V/s. Chunni Lal AIR 1916 All 10, that where first application has been dismissed on applicants default in fulfilling a condition imposed by the Court, he can apply afresh. Earlier Succession Certificate case was dismissed for default because of certain technicality. Learned Counsel has contended that the earlier application was defective since the names of the heirs had not been mentioned. 9. Earlier Succession Certificate case was dismissed for default because of certain technicality. Learned Counsel has contended that the earlier application was defective since the names of the heirs had not been mentioned. 9. In any view of the matter, since the objector here did not contest the case before the District Judge, he cannot in absence of any counter-affidavit or an application raise objection at this stage. This appeal is allowed and the order dated 9.1.1998 passed by the District Judge, Darbhanga in succession Case No. 13 of 1995 is hereby set aside and the application for Succession certificate is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.