JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The simple question which arises in this case is if the Petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as the 'Code' for brevity, has been erroneously rejected by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in a INTST Misc. Case filed u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, hereinafter referred as the 'Act' for brevity. 2. Sashimani Das, opposite party No. 1 filed an application u/s 372 of the Act impleading opposite parties 2 and 3 as opposite parties, inter alia, pleading that they are the only legal heirs of Late Gokulananda Das and, therefore, a Succession Certificate should be issued in their favour. In that proceeding, a petition was filed by the present Petitioner on the ground that he is the elder brother of the said Gokulanand Das and the opposite party No. 1 is not wife of the deceased and the opposite parties 2 and 3 are not his children. Such petition was taken up for consideration and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara as per order dated 21-07-2006. While disposing of such application for addition of parties as an intervener, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has held that the Petitioner being the elder brother is a Class II heir and in presence of Class I heirs like wife and children, he is not a proper and necessary party. Such order has been assailed in this writ application. 3. In assailing the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no prejudice Will be caused to the opposite parties, if the Petitioner is added as an intervener in the case and secondly, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) should not have presumed opposite parties to be the legal heirs of the deceased, when it is disputed by the intervener. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, relying upon the reported decision of V.K. Kamalam Vs. Panchali Amma and Others argued that the proceeding u/s 372 of the Act is a summary in nature and it would not act as res judicata. However, in that case, the Court has further held that the Court has to ascertain whether the person to whom it grants certificate has prima facie right to it. Panchali Amma and Others argued that the proceeding u/s 372 of the Act is a summary in nature and it would not act as res judicata. However, in that case, the Court has further held that the Court has to ascertain whether the person to whom it grants certificate has prima facie right to it. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has also relied upon the case of Prabha Bhasin Vs. The State wherein an application filed by Class II heirs, in the presence of admitted Class I heirs of a Hindu, was rejected on the ground that the Class II heirs shall succeed only when there are no Class I heirs. 4. Having gone through these two decisions, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute regarding the principle settled in those cases. However, factually this case is different. In this case, the present Petitioner has disputed the legal status of the opposite party No. 1 as the widow of the deceased. So prima facie it is to be decided whether she is the widow of the deceased. The learned trial Judge, cannot presume it in favour of opposite party No. 1. Furthermore, in case the petition of the present Petitioner is allowed and a case shall be decided on contest, though on a summary manner, such decision will not prejudice any of the parties. Thus, this Court holds that the Petitioner has a right to be impleaded in the case and to raise objection as he deems proper. However, INTST Misc. Case proceeding should be disposed of within a specific time. 5. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The order dated 21-7-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara in INTST Misc. Case No. 12 of 2003, Annexure 3 is quashed. The Petitioner is allowed to be added as an intervener in the INTST Misc. Case. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara on 15-12-2010. The Petitioner shall file his objection positively within two weeks thereof. Then the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall do well to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom. No cost. Final Result : Allowed