JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, judgment dated 12.9.2007, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal is under challenge. Lila Ram father of the petitioners was employee of respondent-National Diary Research Institute, Karnal. On his death, the petitioners filed petition for succession certificate regarding his service benefits by impleading General Public as respondent no. 1 and Lakhpati Devi widow of Lila Ram (mother of the petitioners) as respondent no. 2. The said application for succession certificate was allowed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal vide judgment dated 23.8.2003, Annexure P/10 thereby granting succession certificate for the amount of ` 1,29,824/- with upto date interest in favour of the petitioners. Respondent filed application for waiving of interest on the due amount of Lila Ram. Learned trial court vide order dated 18.11.2005, Annexure P/2 dismissed the said application and ordered that respondent is liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum. However, appeal against the said order has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 12.9.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge judgment dated 12.9.2007, Annexure P/1 passed by the appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that vide judgment Annexure P/10, interest has been awarded to the petitioners and the said judgment has attained finality and application moved by respondent for waiver of interest amounts seeking review or amendment of the said judgment which is not permissible. It was pointed out that even the trial court while dismissing the said application observed that the respondent herein can approach higher court if provided under the law. It was also argued that since the respondent has withheld the service benefits of the deceased, petitioners are entitled to claim interest from the respondent. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others, (2001-2) PLR 606. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same are completely misconceived and misdirected. Judgment Annexure P/10 regarding succession certificate on application filed by petitioners under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act merely decided as to who is heir of Lila Ram and is legally entitled to the amount whatsoever was due to the deceased Lila Ram. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same are completely misconceived and misdirected. Judgment Annexure P/10 regarding succession certificate on application filed by petitioners under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act merely decided as to who is heir of Lila Ram and is legally entitled to the amount whatsoever was due to the deceased Lila Ram. The said judgment nowhere decided the liability of the respondent herein either to pay principal amount of 1,29,824/- or the liability to pay any interest thereon. On the contrary, the purpose of the succession certificate is that if pursuant to the succession certificate, the debtor pays the amount to the holder of the succession certificate, the liability of the debtor stands discharged and any third claimant would not be entitled to claim the amount from the debtor but would have to seek remedy against the holder of the succession certificate who might have received the amount of the deceased. However, purpose of succession certificate is not to fix liability of a third person or alleged debtor regarding the due amount or to determine the amount of alleged debt. In fact, even the petitioners were aware of this situation and therefore, they did not implead the respondent herein as party to the petition for succession certificate. On the other hand, the liability of the debtor (respondent herein in the instant case) can be determined in separate appropriate proceedings and not in petition for succession certificate. Purpose of granting succession certificate is to determine the dispute if any among the persons claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased. Consequently, the question whether the respondent is liable to pay interest or not is to be determined in separate appropriate proceedings and cannot be said to have been determined in judgment Annexure P/10 regarding grant of succession certificate. Vide judgment Annexure P/10, it has been directed that succession certificate for the amount of ` 1,29,824/- with upto date interest be issued in favour of the petitioners. It would mean that the aforesaid amount with (accrued amount of) interest (if any) would be payable to the petitioners. However, it does not mean that the court determined and found that interest was also payable. No rate of interest has either been granted or specified in the said judgment for the same reason. It would mean that the aforesaid amount with (accrued amount of) interest (if any) would be payable to the petitioners. However, it does not mean that the court determined and found that interest was also payable. No rate of interest has either been granted or specified in the said judgment for the same reason. Consequently, interest @ 10% could not be granted to the petitioners on application moved by respondent for waiver of the interest. Judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) has no applicability to the instant case. The said judgment would be relevant when question of liability of respondent to pay interest is to be determined in appropriate proceedings. However, the said question is not being determined in the instant lis. Finality of judgment Annexure P/10 would only mean that the petitioners would be entitled to receive the amount whatsoever was due to the deceased Lila Ram. It does not mean that any amount which is not admitted to be due would also be payable without any adjudication. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned judgment Annexure P/1 passed by the lower appellate court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.