JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Phul whereby application moved by Baba Charan Singh under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of certificate of succession granted in favour of Mukh Sewak Baba Hardeep Singh vide order dated 06.09.1999 (wrongly typed as 06.06.1999 in the impugned order dated 21.08.2008 and application, Annexure P-3), has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that application for succession certificate could not have been moved in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul. Firstly, no property of the concerned person was at that very place in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Phul, nor he was residing there. The learned counsel has further contended that Baba Hardyal Singh passed away in Sirhali, Tehsil Taran Tarn. The bank account in question was also at Punjab National Bank, Goindwal Sahib which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Taran Tarn. The learned counsel has further contended that mutation no.1401 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 28.07.2003 passed by Collector, Amritsar in appeal preferred in the mutation proceedings reveal that litigation was pending between the parties before the revenue authorities. The learned counsel has made reference to Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act which reads as under: “383. Revocation of certificate. - A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:- (a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance. The learned counsel has made reference to Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act which reads as under: “383. Revocation of certificate. - A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:- (a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance. (b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case; (c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to efforts comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the case of the petitioner squarely falls under Section 383(b) of the Indian Succession Act, as application for issuance of succession certificate was filed before the Court by concealing material facts. The learned counsel has further contended that jurisdiction of the Court at Phul is barred in view of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, as at the time of his death, Baba Hardyal Singh was residing at Sirhali within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Taran Tarn. The learned counsel has also made reference to para no.25 of the impugned order to contend that approach of the trial Court is erroneous and perverse. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in reply to the application for revocation of succession certification, the respondents have admitted that Baba Hardyal Singh was having property within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Taran Tarn and died in the same very jurisdiction. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that it is the satisfaction of the District Judge which is material under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act to entertain an application. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that it is the satisfaction of the District Judge which is material under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act to entertain an application. The learned counsel has further contended that Baba Hardyal Singh was in fact a roaming personality and wherever he went, he had his own ‘karsewa jathas’ and had no permanent residence. Since he was devoted to ‘karsewa’ of Sikh religious places, it could not be treated that he would be staying in a particular place. The learned counsel has further contended that so far as the death of Baba Hardyal Singh is concerned, he had not died natural death, rather it is a civil death. In fact, he was picked up by the police and thereafter could not be traced out. The learned counsel has further contended that proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act are summary in nature. The Civil Court as well as the revenue authorities have directed the parties that they can get their rights settled through the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. Before dealing with the other contentions of learned counsel for the parties, firstly I would like to deal with the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to perversity as projected from para no.25 of the impugned order which reads as under: “25. So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent concealed material fact in the application moved u/s 373 under Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate that litigation was already pending between the parties pertaining to the Wills executed by deceased Baba Hardial Singh before revenue authorities, it is pointed out that said contention is devoid of any merit. The succession certificate moved by Baba Hardeep Singh on 10.6.99 was decided on 6.9.99 by this Court. The petitioner has failed to place on the file any document on the file that litigation was pending between the parties before the revenue authorities on 10.6.99 when the application for succession was moved or on 6.9.99 when the said application for succession was decided. The petitioner has failed to place on the file any document on the file that litigation was pending between the parties before the revenue authorities on 10.6.99 when the application for succession was moved or on 6.9.99 when the said application for succession was decided. The order Ex.PX was passed by the Collector, Amritsar on 28.7.2003 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Baba Hardeep Singh on the ground that order dated 20.9.2002 vide which the mutation of the estate of Baba Hardial Singh was sanctioned in favour of Baba Charan Singh was already set aside by Collector, Amritsar.” 9. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the basis of perversity in the impugned order is that revenue litigations were pending before the revenue authorities and specifically reference has been made to mutation No.1401(Annexure P-6) and order dated 28.07.2003 (Annexure P-5). Perusal of findings recorded by the trial court vide impugned order as well as mutation no.1401 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 28.07.2003 (Annexure P-5) reveal that property is in the name of ‘Loh Langar Sant Baba Hardial Singh Kar Sewa Goindwal Sahib through Prem Singh son of Dalip Singh, vendee. In these circumstances, prima facie it appears that this was only a legal entity. There was no question of same being in the name of individual. Perusal of mutation (Annexure P-6) reveals that it was entered in favour of ‘Loh Langar Sant Baba Hardial Singh Kar Sewa Goindwal Sahib through Prem Singh son of Dalip Singh, vendee. 10. So far as the issue with regard to death of Baba Hardyal Singh, who might have been managing the said institution, is concerned, it cannot be said that he was the only owner of the same, rather from the perusal of mutation, it is clear that the same was managed through one Prem Singh son of Dalip Singh, who got executed the sale deeds for that purpose. It is clear that before the revenue court, the parties were not litigating under the title under which they are now litigating. In view of this, finding recorded by the trial Court in para no.25 of the impugned order is legal and valid. 11. It is clear that before the revenue court, the parties were not litigating under the title under which they are now litigating. In view of this, finding recorded by the trial Court in para no.25 of the impugned order is legal and valid. 11. So far as the other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction is concerned, it is made clear that under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, if from the averments made in the application, the District Judge is satisfied that there is a ground to entertain the application, he shall fix a date for hearing and issue notice of the application. In this case, admittedly, the general public was impleaded as a party and the public notice was issued and thereafter the order dated 6.9.1999 was passed. If at all, the petitioner was an interested party, he should have appeared before the Court after issuance of public notice. In proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, only public notice is issued because there is no question of inheritance or the succession by the sons and daughter of an individual, as proceedings concern legal entity. Otherwise also, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not required to re-appreciate the entire evidence recorded on the basis of which the trial court has recorded the finding. 12. Moreover, there is no dispute that since the proceedings are summary in nature, the petitioner will be at liberty to get the disputes settled through competent civil court. 13. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 21.08.2008. Dismissed. --------------------