JUDGMENT:- The present second appeal is filed by the appellants. challenging the final judgment and order dated 10th January, 2003 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge. Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No 411/ 2000. 2. The background facts of the case are as under. The present appellant filed an application for grant of letter of administration before Civil Judge. Senior Division. Aurangabad bearing MARJI No.472/1997. It is the case of the appellants that they are the legal representatives of deceased Ashokkumar and being legal representatives of deceased Ashokkumar, they have filed this application for grant of letters of administration. 3. The in-charge Joint Civil judge. Senior Division. Aurangabad by its order dated 4th July. 1998 directed to issue letter of administration in favour of petitioners. The respondent No.1 Sunita filed application for succession certificate under Indian Succession Act. claiming that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Ashokkumar. The said application was filed on 27/11/1997 before the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division. Aurangabad bearing MARJI No.480/1997. On 25/11/1999 the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Aurangabad pleased to pass the order in MARJI No.480/97. The said order is as under. 1. Application Exh.01 is hereby allowed as under. 2. Issue Succession Certificate in the name of petitioner Smt. Sunita W/0. Ashokkumar Raisoni and respondent No.02 Smt. Sashikalabai W/o. Dwarkadas Raisoni. empowering them to receive P.P. Rs.99444/-. Gratuity Rs.70,000/-. Salary amount Rs.5,945/-, salary for the amount of October. 1997 Rs. 1,395, and Leave encashment Rs.7,955/-, total amount Rs. 1,85.0391lying in the name of deceased in his company. 3. Pronounced in open Court. 4. On 28/9/1998 the respondent No.1 Sunita filed application bearing MRAJI No.392/98 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad for revocation of order granting letter of administration in favour of appellants in MARJI No.472/97. 5. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad by its order dated 25/11/1999 pleased to reject the application bearing No.392/l998 on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad and further observed that in fact, it was for the petitioner to file suit for declaration. 6. The respondent No.1 Sunita, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Civil Judge. Senior Division, Aurangabad in MARJI No.392/1998 preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No.411/2000 before the District Judge at Aurangabad. 7. The learned Extra Joint District Judge. 6. The respondent No.1 Sunita, being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Civil Judge. Senior Division, Aurangabad in MARJI No.392/1998 preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No.411/2000 before the District Judge at Aurangabad. 7. The learned Extra Joint District Judge. Aurangabad, by his order dated 10th January, 2003 in Regular Civil appeal No.411/2000 pleased to allow the said appeal and letter of administration in MARJI No.472/1997 is revoked, being not in accordance with the law. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th January, 2003 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Aurangabad this second appeal is filed by the appellants. 8. Though many grounds are raised in second appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants restricted his arguments to the following two grounds. I. Whether the District Court can exercised the delegated powers afresh in Regular Civil Appeal, when it has been already exercised by Civil Judge, Senior Division? ii. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Extra Joint District Judge, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.411/2000 dated 10/1/2003 is without jurisdiction? 9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the provisions of section 264 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 arc in respect of the jurisdiction, granting and revoking probates etc. under Part IX, Chapter IV of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents in spite of challenging the order of letter of administration passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division in MARJI No.472/1997 dated 4.7.1998 before the District Judge by way of appeal, said order was challenged by the respondents before the Civil Judge, Senior Division. He further submitted that when the Civil Judge, Senior Division has rejected the application of the respondent for revocation of letter of administration, the respondent had filed Regular Civil appeal No.411/1998 before the District Judge and District Judge by order dated 10th January, 2003 has revoked the letter of administration. granted in favour of appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, once the Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejected the application filed by the respondent for revocation of letter of administration, granted in favour of appellants, it was not open for the respondent to challenge that order before the District Judge by way of filing appeal. granted in favour of appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, once the Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejected the application filed by the respondent for revocation of letter of administration, granted in favour of appellants, it was not open for the respondent to challenge that order before the District Judge by way of filing appeal. According to the counsel for the appellants, the Civil Judge, Senior Division exercised the powers delegated to him by the District Judge and rejected the application filed by the respondent for revocation of letter of administration, granted in favour of appellants. The sum and substance of his argument is that once the respondent approached to the Civil Judge, Senior Division for revocation of letter of administration by way of filing application and if the Civil Judge. Senior Division has passed the order on said application, in exercise of delegated powers, confirmed on him by the District Judge, it was not open for the respondents to file the appeal before the District Judge, the District Judge should not have exercised the delegated powers afresh when same have been already exercised by the Civil Judge. Senior Division. 10. He further submitted that so far the provisions of section 388 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 are concerned, it is in respect of power of granting succession certificate under part X of the Act. According to him, as far as the applicability of the notification issued under the provision of section 388 of the Indian Succession Act is concerned, said is not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to him, the provisions of section 388 of the Act deals with grant of succession certificate under different separate and independent part of the Act i.e. part X of the Act, whereas the provisions of section 264 of the Act deals with the practice in granting and revoking probate and letter of administration under part IX of Chapter IV of the Act. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Extract Joint District Judge dated 10th January. 2003, exercising the powers afresh already delegated to Civil Judge, Senior Division was wrong, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Extract Joint District Judge dated 10th January. 2003, exercising the powers afresh already delegated to Civil Judge, Senior Division was wrong, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. The learned counsel in the end submitted that the ground Nos.4 and 8 of this appeal are the pure substantial question of law and therefore, this appeal deserves to be admitted in the interest of justice, since the subject matter of appeal is in respect of immovable joint family property. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Ashokkumar Dwarkadas was the husband of the respondent. She is legally wedded wife of deceased Ashokkumar. He died on 7110/1997 at Aurangabad. Deceased Ashokkumar was serving in company at Aurangabad. Therefore, the respondent has filed application for succession certificate under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the Civil Judge. Senior Division. Aurangabad bearing MARJI No.480/1997 making party to her mother-in-law namely Shashikalabai Raisoni. The succession certificate has been issued by the Civil Judge. Senior Division on 27.11.1999 in the name of respondent and her mother-in-law. The said order dated 27.11.1999 in respect of succession certificate is not challenged by the present appellants till date before any other Court and said order has attended finality. She further submitted that the present appellants have filed application for granting letter of administration bearing MARJI No.472/1997 before the Joint Civil Judge. Senior Division. Aurangabad. They have not made party to the present respondent and behind her back, they have obtained letter of administration in their favour on 4.7.1998. She further submitted that when the respondent came to know about the said granting of letter of administration ex-parte in favour of appellants, respondent filed application bearing MARJI No.392/1998 before the Civil Judge. Senior Division for revocation of order dated 4/7/1998. Said application was rejected by the Civil Judge. Senior Division on 25/11/1998. Therefore, the respondent preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No.411/2000 before the Extra Joint District Judge. Aurangabad and said appeal has been allowed by the Extra Joint District Judge on 10th January. 2003. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that her case is covered under the Indian Succession Act and Civil Manual. Senior Division on 25/11/1998. Therefore, the respondent preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No.411/2000 before the Extra Joint District Judge. Aurangabad and said appeal has been allowed by the Extra Joint District Judge on 10th January. 2003. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that her case is covered under the Indian Succession Act and Civil Manual. She further submitted that if the provision of section 264 of Chapter IV are perused, it clear that the District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking the probates and letter of administration in all cases within his direct. She further submitted that under section 265 of the Indian Succession Act, the High Court may appoint Judicial Officer within any District as it think fit to act for District Judge, has delegated to grant probate and letter of administration in non-contentious cases within such local limits as it may be prescribed. She further invited attention of this Court to the clause 2 of section 265, where the persons so appointed in Class I shall be called "District Delegates". 12. She further submitted that under section 265 of the Indian Succession Act, the High Court has delegated the powers to Judicial Officers and therefore, the Civil Judge. Senior Division has power to grant or revoke probate and letter of administration. She further submitted that Civil Manual Chapter 14 shows the proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and mentioned the notification under paras 304 and 305 in respect of delegating powers to Civil Judges. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on provisions of section 388 and section 384 of the Indian Succession Act and contended that there are powers to the District Judge to entertain appeal. She further submitted that the provisions of Indian Succession Act provides for appeal before the District Judge. According to her, when it is admitted by the appellants themselves that the respondent ought to have challenge the said order before the District Judge by way of appeal, the appeal which was filed by the respondent before the District Judge, was maintainable. She submitted that the appeal filed by appellants does not raise any substantial question of law. According to her, application for respondent for revocation of letter of administration granted in favour of appellants, has been dismissed by the Civil Judge. She submitted that the appeal filed by appellants does not raise any substantial question of law. According to her, application for respondent for revocation of letter of administration granted in favour of appellants, has been dismissed by the Civil Judge. Senior Division on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to cancel the letter of administration, therefore. Once, the Civil Judge. Senior Division has rejected the said application merely on the ground of jurisdiction, the appeal filed by the appellants before the District Judge was maintainable and the judgment and order passed by the District Judge is perfectly sustainable in law. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any substantial question of law arises in the second and therefore, appeal filed by the appellants may be rejected. 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as respondent at great length. This matter is for the admission of the second appeal. I feel it appropriate to dispose of this second appeal at admission stage, keeping in mind the submissions made by the parties. 14. The present appellants who are original petitioners have filed application for grant of letter of administration on the ground that they are legal representatives of deceased Ashokkumar Raisoni, who expired on 7/10/1997. They further stated that in their application, despite the publication of notice in daily "Tarun Bharat" nobody resisted their application. 15. The in-charge Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Aurangabad after perusal of necessary certificates produced before him by the appellants came to the conclusion that they are legal representatives of deceased Ashokkumar Dwarkadas Raisoni and granted the letter of administration in favour of applicants. The application filed by the petitioners for letter of administration was allowed. The letter of administration was given in the name of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, declaring that they are legal heirs of deceased Ashokkumar s/o. Dwarkadas Raisoni on execution of security bond of Rs.75,000/-. 16. This order was challenged by the respondent herein by way of filing MARJI No.392/98 for recalling/setting aside the order dated 4th July, 1998 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in MARJI No.472/l997 by which letter of administration was granted in favour of appellants herein. The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Aurangabad by his order dated 25/11/1999 rejected the application filed by the respondent. 17. The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Aurangabad by his order dated 25/11/1999 rejected the application filed by the respondent. 17. In para 5 of the judgment of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division. has referred to the arguments advanced by the counsel of the respondents i.e. present appellants. The para 5 of the judgment is reproduced herein as under;- "It is argued by the learned counsel of the respondents that once the Court has passed order, then this Court has no powers to set aside that order. She has to appear before the Appellate Court to set aside the order." 18. On the basis of arguments advanced by the advocate for the appellants and respondent herein, the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in para 6 observed that in fact the letter of administration was granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. It was for the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority against that order. This Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. 19. Mere perusal of para 5 of the judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division which is produced hereinabove, would show that the present appellants had taken stand before the Civil Judge, Senior Division that once the Court has passed the order granting letter of administration, then the Court has no power to set aside that order. This was the stand taken by the appellants before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad has observed in para 6 that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondents for cancellation of letter of administration. In my view, once the appellants had taken stand before the Civil Judge, Senior Division that, "once the Court has passed order granting letter of administration, then that Court has no powers to set aside that order", now cannot be allowed to change its stand. 20. Secondly, the appellants subjected to the jurisdiction of the District Judge, contested the matter on merits. The appeal filed by the present respondent has been allowed. Now, it is not open for the appellants to say that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal merely because Civil Judge. Senior Division rejected the application of the respondent. 21. Thirdly, the contention of the appellants that the powers, exercised by the Civil Judge. The appeal filed by the present respondent has been allowed. Now, it is not open for the appellants to say that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal merely because Civil Judge. Senior Division rejected the application of the respondent. 21. Thirdly, the contention of the appellants that the powers, exercised by the Civil Judge. Senior Division while rejecting the application of the respondent herein which was filed for cancellation of letter of administration, were delegated by the District Judge and therefore, once those powers were exercised by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, it was not open for the District Judge to exercise appellate powers, is wholly misplaced. The authority who delegates its original powers has jurisdiction to exercise original or appellate powers. Therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent was rightly entertained and adjudicated by the District Judge. 22. To sum up the discussion, firstly the appellants who took stand before the Civil Judge. Senior Division that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent for cancellation of letter of administration, now cannot be allowed to change their stand. The Civil Judge. Senior Division has accepted the contention of the appellants and came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertains the application filed by the respondent for cancellation of letter of administration. Secondly, once the appellants have subjected to the jurisdiction of the District Judge in an appeal filed by the respondent, contested the matter on merits and the District Judge had passed the final judgment and order, it was not open for the appellants to say that the said Court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and order which is challenged in the second appeal. Thirdly, the District Judge who had delegated powers to the Civil Judge, Senior Division can himself exercise its original or appellate powers. Therefore, this second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. There is no substance in this second appeal and same is dismissed. Second appeal dismissed.