Oral Judgment 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Respondent Kusum filed Misc. Application No. 140 of 2011 for grant of legal heirship certificate claiming that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Babarao Deorao Dhawangale who died on 9.2.2011. Present petitioners were not made party to that application. However, when they came to know about filing of that application through proclamation, they filed objection before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, SD, Nagpur before whom the application was made. 3. Respondent (original applicant) adduced evidence. However, she could not be crossexamined by the petitioners as they were absent and their counsel was also absent. Petitioners applied for recall of respondent, but the learned trial Judge rejected that application vide order dated 4.3.2013. Petitioners’ application for allowing them to lead evidence was also rejected by the learned trial Judge on the same date. Learned trial Judge then by order dated 30.4.2013 allowed the application of respondent and issued her legal heirship certificate, as applied for. The aforesaid orders dated 4.3.2013 and 30.4.2013 are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The respondent had preferred application under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. The said Regulation was declared on 1st January 1827 by the Laws Local Extent Act, 1874 (15 of 1874) in the State of Bombay except as regards the scheduled districts as mentioned thereunder. It is provided under Section 215 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 that a grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of an estate shall be deemed to supersede any certificate previously granted under Part X or under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889 or Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827 in respect of any debts or securities included in the estate. Under clause 4 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, it is provided that if before expiration of the time any objection is made to the right of the person claiming as heir, the Judge concerned shall summarily investigate the grounds of objections on the one hand, and of the right claimed on the other, examining such witnesses or other evidence as may be adduced by the parties, and either grant or refuse a certificate, as the circumstances of the case may require. It is further provided in the second part of the said clause 4 that if from the evidence adduced it appears that the question at issue between the parties is of a complicated or difficult nature, the Judge may suspend proceedings in the application for a certificate until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties. 5. Original applicant Kusum claimed that she was married to Babarao on 5.6.1983 at Saoner and there was no divorce or dissolution of marriage between the two. According to her, Babarao had refused to maintain her and, therefore, she had to take recourse to maintenance proceedings which were culminated in her favour and she had later on filed application for enhancement of maintenance allowance. Petitioner no. 1 in her objection dated 27.7.2011 denied the claim of applicant Kusum as regards marriage and desertion. She denied Section 125 Cr. P. C. proceedings for want of knowledge. She claimed that she was married to deceased Babarao on 24.5.1991 and the marriage was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Kalmeshwar and out of wedlock, petitioners no. 2 to 5 are born. She further claimed that she is shown as nominee in his service record by Babarao. She further claimed that the name of applicant Kusum in municipal record and revenue record is entered as “Kusum Rajaram Thakre”. 6. It is thus obvious that question at issue before the Court below between the parties was of complicated and difficult nature and the Judge concerned entertaining the application under the Bombay Regulation ought to have directed that one of the parties may take recourse to a regular civil suit in competent civil court by suspending the proceedings in the application for legal heirship certificate under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 until the question has been tried by a regular civil suit instituted by one of the parties in competent civil court. 7. Hence, writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned orders dated 4.3.2013 and 30.4.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Hence, writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned orders dated 4.3.2013 and 30.4.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is open for either of the parties to file a regular civil suit or to take up any other proceedings, as may be advised, under the Law of Succession, as to a question of marital and heirship status and until such question has been tried and decided by a competent civil court, the proceedings in MJC No. 140 of 2011 shall remain suspended. Rule is made absolute in these terms with no order as to costs.