JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed on 3-1-1989 below Exhibit 22 by which the respondents have requested the trial Court to allow the amendment to the objection which they have filed in Misc. Application No. 82 of 1985. 2. Misc. Application No. 82 of 1985 has been filed by the revision petitioners under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to obtain succession certificate after the death of Tukaram Janu Pakhare who expired on 17-9-1983. After the notice was issued by the Civil Court the respondents have filed objection on 23-10-1985 and have contended that the petitioner Deubai is not legally wedded wife of the deceased Tukaram, but objector No. 1 Muktabai is legally wedded wife of deceased Tukaram. Thereafter in para No. 5, the genealogy is given. Said genealogy has shown Deubai as second wife and it is further shown that Vinod petitioner No. 2 and Manoj alias Shrikant, petitioner No. 3 are the sons of Tukaram. It requires to be stated at this stage only that even though the status of Deubai has been challenged in the said objection petition, still the status of Vinod and Manoj as sons of Tukaram have not been objected. However, it is not known from the said objection in what manner the objector respondents claimed that Deubai is not legally wedded wife because the marriage can become illegal on several counts. Thereafter the respondents filed an application whereby they requested to allow the amendment whereby they proposed the amendment of the following nature: "The applicant Deubai is the wife of one Keshavrao s/o Maruti Sonawane, r/o Village Khumba (Limba), Taluka Patoda. Their marriage having taken place in or about the year 1969 the marital relation between the applicant No. 1 and the said Keshavrao still subsists in law. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are not born to applicant No. 1 from the said deceased Tukaram. That the applicant No. 1 Deubai has to value for truth, morality and honesty. She can stoop to any low extent to acquire properties of others or for monetary gains. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 are neither legal heirs of deceased Tukaram nor concerned whatsoever with him i.e. deceased Tukaram." These were the paragraphs which were proposed to be included by way of para Nos. She can stoop to any low extent to acquire properties of others or for monetary gains. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 are neither legal heirs of deceased Tukaram nor concerned whatsoever with him i.e. deceased Tukaram." These were the paragraphs which were proposed to be included by way of para Nos. 1 and 7(h) and therefore, the amendment application was submitted. The trial Court after having considered rival contentions has allowed the application on payment of the cost of Rs. 100/-. The said order is under challenge in this petition. 3. The learned Counsel Shri D.B. Yeotekar, appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, the Court cannot follow any other procedure other than the procedure provided in the said section. The said section 373 lays down that after the petition is entertained by the Court, the said Court shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing. (a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and (b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the Court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) 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 any 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. (4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respect of the applicants. On the basis of this section it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the proceedings of the succession certificate under Chapter X of the said Act. He has further in order to support the said contention relied on section 387 of Indian Succession Act which states pointing out that no decision under this part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Thus it is submitted that application to get succession certificate is not a suit and that decision in this proceeding cannot bar the trial of the same issue in any subsequent suit and proceeding and as the law has not valued the proceeding under this Act as equivalent to the suit, the Civil Procedure Code cannot be made applicable. He relied on A.I.R. 1924 Allahabad 376 in the case of (Kanhaiya v. Kanhaiya Lal)1, and (1967(1) Allahabad Weekly Report 199)2. 4. No doubt section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 lays down the procedure on an application for getting the succession certificate but on analysis the said procedure is to fix the date of hearing and cause notice of the application and the dates fixed to the persons who according to the Judge appears necessary to be served and then affix the said notice on conspicuous part of the Court-house and publish in such manner as provided by the Rules made by the High Court and thereafter proceed to decide in summary manner right to certificate. This procedure is laid down in two parts, firstly notice to special person with the public notice to all those who are interested to appear and file objections and thereafter to decide the claim in summary manner and secondly, whenever it is noticed that case involves complicated question difficult to determine in a proceeding under the summary manner to grant such certificate to a person having prima facie best title thereto. In view of this procedure, section 387 has not given finality to the said order and it is not treated as a judgment in rem but all questions which are involved in the proceeding are kept open to be considered in a subsequent appropriate proceeding. This analysis therefore points out that the procedure as provided under section 373 prescribes for the issuance of the notice and decide the simple claims to succession certificate holding inquiry in a summary manner. However, the procedure provided in section 373 does not deal with the matters pertaining to the addition of the parties and/or amendment of either the application and/or objections and so many other things. Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to argue larger question, as the said point is not directly and substantially involved in this matter, I am not inclined to decide the said larger question that is non-application of Civil Procedure Code to the trial before the Succession Court. The only point which is being considered in this matter is whether Order VI, Rule 17 which provides for amendment of the application and/or written statement can be invoked for the purpose of the amendment of objections which has been filed by the respondent. Section 373 does not deal with this aspect and is conspicuously silent. Therefore, in the absence of any provision in section 373 what should be the procedure which the party should follow if they desire to amend the very application and/or objection which has been filed under section 373. The learned Counsel states that as there is no procedure provided, the amendment cannot be made and the Court cannot go beyond section 373 of the Act. I am not inclined to accept this argument because in that eventuality firstly the party will be entitled to file additional objections without having recourse to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and if that is so then taking recourse to Order VI, Rule 17 is equally permissible. I am not inclined to accept this argument because in that eventuality firstly the party will be entitled to file additional objections without having recourse to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and if that is so then taking recourse to Order VI, Rule 17 is equally permissible. What is pertinent to be noted is that even though we are considering the present respondents case who are objectors but if the submission of the learned Counsel is accepted the persons who file the petition for getting the succession certificate if comes across any subsequent debts and securities which are required to be included in the application for succession certificate will be deprived of disclosing the said claims and in that event only remedy is to file a separate application for succession certificate and/or not to press for such debts and securities and the law never expected such anomalous results. It is well settled principle that if a party has a right the remedy for the said right should be provided and we cannot say that since remedy has not been provided, therefore, one cannot agitate the said right. Therefore the submission of learned Counsel is hereby rejected. Apart from this the question as posed whether the Civil Procedure Code will apply or not, the cases which have been cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner namely (1) A.I.R. 1924 All. 376 Kanhaiya v. Kanhaiya Lal and 1967 All. Weekly Reports 119 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. First case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not under the present Act but it is the case under Succession Certificate Act, 1889 wherein the procedure is otherwise and no pari materia provision/s is/are pointed out by the learned Counsel from both the Acts in order to attract the ratio of the said case. On the contrary the learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that there are no pari materia provisions in both the statutes. On the contrary the learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that there are no pari materia provisions in both the statutes. The second case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in respect of section 387 of the Indian Succession Act and Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the question which was considered was that whether the withdrawal of the succession certificate application prohibit the subsequent filing of any application and/or suit as provided under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the Court has observed that in view of the provisions of section 387 that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable. Simple analysis therefore is that withdrawal of the application under the Indian Succession Act cannot prohibit the filing of second application. However, section 387 does not show that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable but section 387 lays down that any question of law and fact which are decided in the proceeding under the Indian Succession Act shall not prohibit or bar considering the same question in appropriate civil proceeding subsequently filed. Being aware of the fact that the rights are decided summarily and that in some cases even they are not finally adjudicated by the Court, having found that they are too intricate and difficult to determine in the said proceeding and the certificate is being issued to the person having prima facie best title thereto, the said provision has been carved out that the decision in succession certificate proceeding shall not bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties. This case, therefore, does not lay down the ratio that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable but it interprets the section 387 qua the Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and lays down what are the consequences of the decision under the Indian Succession Act so far as the civil rights of the parties which are required to be adjudicated in Civil Court by filing the appropriate civil proceedings for final adjudication of the rights of the parties. Having found that under these circumstances both the cases are not applicable, it requires to be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon A.I.R. 1964 Patna page 272 in the case of (Ramji Sao v. Jageswari)3, and 1979(1) Andhra Weekly Reports 475 (Vishnu Kumar v. Bhavari Bai)4. In the case before Patna High Court, referred to above, it has been held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the procedure in civil suits will apply also to a proceeding for grant of succession certificate under the Act because it is proceeding in a Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Section 384 of the Act appear to show that the provisions relating to reference and revision by the High Court as well as to review of judgment as given in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to a proceeding for grant of a succession certificate before the District Judge, and that they would apply because of the provisions of section 141 of Civil Procedure Code. In a later case 1979 Andhra Weekly Reports 475, the question was of impleading the parties and it has been observed that section 376 of the Act and the Rules made by the High Court in Part I of the Indian Succession Act are silent as to the mode and procedure. There is no logic behind as to why he raises objection to the grant of succession certificate. It has been observed that in the very view of the matter taken by the lower Court allowing the revision petitioner to file the objection, he can very well be impleaded as party having regard to the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable in the light of section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code. No difficulty will arise even in transposing the revision petitioner. I am in agreement with the view taken in the above referred case by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that the procedure provided in this Code in regard to the suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all the proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that the procedure provided in this Code in regard to the suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all the proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act lays down: Section 384: (1) Subject to the other provisions of the part, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under this part, and the High Court may if it thinks fit, by its order on the appeal declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the District Judge, on application being made therefore to grant it accordingly in supersession of the certificate, if any, already granted. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) must be preferred within the time allowed for an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and to the provisions as to reference to and revision by the High Court and as to review of judgment of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applied by section 141 of that Code, an order of a District Judge under this part shall be final. 5. On reading this section it is evident that while entertaining the appeal or revision and review the Act has provided that the procedure as provided under the Civil Procedure Code has to be followed. It is further necessary to note that in view of the paragraph Nos. 304 and 305 of the Civil Manual it appears that the High Court has delegated the powers under section 265 of the Indian Succession Act to all the Civil Judges to grant the probate and letters of administration in non-contentious cases arising within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction and so also in view of the provisions of section 28-A(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 the High Court has invested all the Civil Judges, Senior Divisions, with all powers of the District Judge to take cognizance of any contentious proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 arising within the local limits of their jurisdiction that may be transferred to them by the respective District Judges. So also the High Court has invested under section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act all the Civil Judge, Junior Divisions with all powers of the District Judge in the matters of issuance of the succession certificate limited to the debts and securities to the extent of their pecuniary jurisdiction. Under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 the District Court is the principal Court of original jurisdiction in the district within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and the District Judge who is invested with the powers of issuing the probate and the letter of administration and the succession certificate is bestowed with the said jurisdiction because he happens to be the principal Court of the original civil jurisdiction in the district within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said powers of the original civil jurisdiction have been conferred by invoking the provisions of section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 to the Civil Judge, Senior Divisions and the Civil Judge, Junior Divisions as stated earlier in view of para No. 305 of the Civil Manual. This points out that the Court which deals with the matters under the Indian Succession Act is the Court of Civil Jurisdiction and if it happens to be the Court of Civil Jurisdiction then whether it is bar that it should not follow the Civil Procedure Code? The reference has already been made to section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code which has stated that the procedure provided in regard to the suits shall be followed as far as practicable in all the proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The words which are important to be noted are that. "In all the proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction". The earlier analysis will point out that the courts dealing with the matters under the Indian Succession Act viz. succession certificate, probate letters of administration are the Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 141, the Civil Procedure Code applies. "In all the proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction". The earlier analysis will point out that the courts dealing with the matters under the Indian Succession Act viz. succession certificate, probate letters of administration are the Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 141, the Civil Procedure Code applies. Once we come to this analysis the direct question whether to file an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the objection has been answered in affirmatively and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable and therefore the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 are not applicable is without any merit and is hereby rejected. 6. It has been earlier stated that while filing the objection even though the status of Deubai, the petitioner has been objected to by the respondents to the effect that she is not legally wedded wife, the status of Vinod and Manoj as sons of Deubai from Tukaram was not challenged. That is now intended to be challenged by the proposed amendment by stating that Deubai was earlier married to one Keshavrao and said marriage still subsists in law and therefore, the applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are not born to the applicant No. 1 from the said deceased Tukaram. Thus by the proposed amendment, not on the status of Deubai is challenged and further explained in what manner her marriage with Tukaram is not legal, but the further plea has been developed that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not born to applicant No. 1 from deceased Tukaram. What is pertinent to be noted is that the respondent can explain in what manner the marriage of Deubai with deceased Tukaram was not legal one by providing the better particulars about their plea or contentions but while doing that when they contended on the basis of that the said Vinod and Manoj are not the sons born to the applicant No. 1 from Tukaram, they are withdrawing the admission which they have already given when they filed the earlier objection and any proposed amendment and/or any amendment which takes away the admission in favour of the adverse party shall not be ordinarily allowed unless the explanation as to under what circumstances, the admissions are given is offered. It is well settled rule that the admissions given in same proceedings are binding as against the parties and cannot be withdrawn and explained, but only those admissions which are given in any other proceedings than the present proceeding they can be explained by the parties showing under what circumstances the admissions were given. As I find that this statement namely "The applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are not born to the applicant No. 1 from said deceased Tukaram", results into withdrawal of the admission, it will be inappropriate to allow the said sentence to be incorporated by way of amendment in the objection. 7. Mr. H.K. Mundhe, tried to submit strenuously that does not amount to withdrawal of the admission, but failed to persuade me. 8. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The order of amendment which has been granted by the trial Court in toto is hereby modified and the amendment stands allowed excluding the following sentence: "The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are not born to the applicant No. 1 from said deceased Tukaram." 9. Rule made absolute accordingly. Revision partly allowed. -----