JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. P. S. Deka, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. I have also heard Mr. A. K. Sahewalla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on call. 2. The order dated 26.08.2022 shows that the service upon all the Respondents are complete. It is also seen that the LCR has been received. 3. Mr. R. S. N. Choudhury, submitted that he has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No.4, but in the meantime the Respondent No.4 has expired. Before further proceedings with the appeal, it is required to be taken into account as to whether the Respondent No.4 needs to be substituted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Taking into account that the Respondent No.4 is the mother of the deceased Late Mridul Kumar Dutta and her right to receive the pensionery benefits was only limited during her lifetime and does not devolved upon her legal representatives, the question of substitution of the Respondent No.4 in the facts of the instant case does not arise. Considering the above, the instant appeal shall proceed in absence of the Respondent No.4. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.07.2018 whereby the application so filed by the Appellant herein was rejected. For the purpose of deciding the instant appeal, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. The parties herein are referred in the same status as they stood before the Trial Court. 5. The Appellant as a Petitioner has filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the “Act of 1925) for granting Succession Certificate in respect of the dues/debts and securities of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta who was the husband of the Petitioner. It was averred in the said application that the Petitioner was the legally wedded wife of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta who died on 27.01.2016 in suspicious circumstances at his working place Hojai, Nagaon. It was stated therein that Late Mridul Kumar Dutta left behind the Petitioner as legally wedded wife and Sri. It was averred in the said application that the Petitioner was the legally wedded wife of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta who died on 27.01.2016 in suspicious circumstances at his working place Hojai, Nagaon. It was stated therein that Late Mridul Kumar Dutta left behind the Petitioner as legally wedded wife and Sri. Pradyut Dutta as the son. It has been mentioned that the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 also Class-I heirs of the deceased Late Mridul Kumar Dutta and the Opposite Party No.1 was a “kept” of the deceased as she has no any legal status to claim as the wife of the deceased. 6. To the said application, Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 had filed the joint written statement objecting to the maintainability of the said proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner had no legal status to file the petition and the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. In Paragraph No.5 of the said written statement, it was stated that the O.P. No.1 is the legally married wife of the deceased Late Mridul Kumar Dutta and after the death of the deceased Late Mridul Kumar Dutta, the Petitioner for her illegal gain wrongly filed this case against the Opposite Parties. In Paragraph No.9 of the said written statement, it was stated that the Petitioner after becoming the mother of a child and to legitimize the birth falsely published the name of the deceased Late Mridul Kumar Dutta as the father of the child at that relevant time. It was mentioned that the Petitioner had also filed a Misc. Case bearing No.40/2006 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the deceased during his lifetime. It was mentioned that the said petition was dismissed for non appearance of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has never restored the said Misc. Case during the lifetime of the deceased. It was mentioned that the O.P. No.1 was married to Late Mridul Kumar Dutta on 24.05.1995 and the Petitioner has not filed any case/objection in the police station or in any other authority at the relevant time. On the basis of the above, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the petition so filed by the Petitioner should be dismissed with cost. The O.P. No.5 who was the son of the Petitioner filed a written statement supporting the stand of the Petitioner. 7. On the basis of the above, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the petition so filed by the Petitioner should be dismissed with cost. The O.P. No.5 who was the son of the Petitioner filed a written statement supporting the stand of the Petitioner. 7. The Court of the Additional District Judge, Sivasagar (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) rejected the said application vide an order dated 25.07.2018, holding inter alia that the documents filed by the Petitioner are fabricated, concocted, tampered ones with an intention to obtain the succession certificate for wrongful gain. It was further observed that the Petitioner has failed to give proper description of debts and securities left behind by the deceased which do not seem to tally with the documents submitted by Opposite Party No.6. Further to that, it was also observed that the Petitioner has failed to prove her contention that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased. However, in the said order, it was also mentioned that the marriage between the deceased and the Petitioner seems to be doubtful for lack of hard evidence in that regard and therefore the Trial Court was of the opinion that the parties may first settle the dispute regarding who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and as such the parties may approach a competent Court dealing with such matter to adjudicate upon the question of the legally married wife of the deceased, so that an effective order can be passed in the succession petition on the basis of the legal heirs of the deceased. It was also observed that as the last residence of the deceased seems to be situated at Dibrugarh, the Trial Court did not have the required jurisdiction to deal with the instant case due to lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court below rejected the Petition No.251/2016 on the ground of jurisdiction. It is against the said order dated 25.07.2018 that the Petitioner as Appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. 8. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that there is already a suit filed between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 6 before the Court of the Civil Judge at Sivasagar which has been registered and numbered as Title Suit No.24/2018. 8. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that there is already a suit filed between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 6 before the Court of the Civil Judge at Sivasagar which has been registered and numbered as Title Suit No.24/2018. In the said suit, the Petitioner has sought for a declaration that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. In the said suit the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party No.5 as plaintiffs sought for declaration that they were the Class-I heirs of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta and entitled for the shares of the estate of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta and for consequential reliefs. He submits that the said suit is presently at the stage of evidence of the plaintiffs. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the perusal of the written statement of the Opposite Parties would clearly show that they are permanent residents of Sivasagar; even the official documents which were adduced as evidence before the Trial Court would also show that the permanent address of the deceased has been shown at Sivasagar. These aspects of the matter were not at all taking into consideration by the Trial Court while dismissing the petition on the ground of jurisdiction. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the materials on record. The written statement so filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 jointly who are the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the instant appeal clearly shows that they are permanent residents of Nauhalia Dehingia Gaon, P.O. Namati(Nazira), P.S. Nazira in the District of Sivasagar, Assam. In the said written statement, there is no denial that the deceased Late Mridul Kumar Dutta was not permanent resident in the District of Sivasagar. In the Employees Pension Fund, it has been mentioned that the permanent residence of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta was at Nomati Nazira, Sivasagar, Nazira Town and his mailing address was Namrup Church Road, Near Sector-C, P.O Parbatpur, Dibrugarh, Namrup, Assam. 11. The petition filed under Section 24(5) of the CPC read with Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the CPC by the Opposite Party Nos. 11. The petition filed under Section 24(5) of the CPC read with Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of the CPC by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 before the Trial Court, it has been mentioned that the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death at Hojai Town, District Hojai (New) Nagaon (Old) Assam as the deceased was a Deputy Manager of SBI, Hojai Branch during his life time. However, in Paragraph No.3 of the said application, it has been mentioned that the deceased was a permanent resident of Ward No.6, Dibrugarh Town and permanently settled at the above place since the last 15 years from where the necessary NRC has also been submitted by the deceased which is also reflected in the Death Certificate of the deceased. This statement at Paragraph No.3 however contrary to the document i.e. the Employees Pension Fund wherein it has been shown that the permanent address of the deceased was at Nomati Nazira, Sivasagar, Nazira Town, Assam. 12. In that view of the matter, if this Court takes into consideration the order passed by the Trial Court, it would be seen that the Trial Court did not take into consideration the said aspect of the matter and on the basis of the documents relating to NRC as well as the Death Certificate, held that Late Mridul Kumar Dutta was a resident of Dibrugarh. There is no reason assigned as to why the Court below came to a finding that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were fabricated, concocted, tampered ones with an intention to obtain the succession certificate for wrongful gain. The Court below also failed to take into consideration that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 have duly stated on the affidavit that they are also permanent residents in the District of Sivasagar and there was no denial to the statement of Paragraph No.1 of the petition filed by the Petitioner wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the deceased was a permanent resident in the District of Sivasagar. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the finding so arrived at by the Court below on the question of jurisdiction suffers from perversity and accordingly is interfered with. 14. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the finding so arrived at by the Court below on the question of jurisdiction suffers from perversity and accordingly is interfered with. 14. The next question which arises is as regards the observations made in the impugned order to the effect that the parties should settle their dispute first as to who is the legally wedded wife and thereby approach a competent Court. As submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, a suit has already been filed being Title Suit No.24/2018 wherein such issue is presently pending before the Court of the Civil Judge at Sivasagar. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration the proceedings under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 is a proceeding of summary nature and cannot deal with the question as to who is the legally wedded wife and there being a proceeding which is already before the competent Court of jurisdiction wherein the said question is presently pending that it would be in the interest of justice that on the basis of the decision arrived at in the said suit i.e. Title Suit No.24/2018, the parties shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for seeking succession certificate in respect to the dues/debts and securities of Late Mridul Kumar Dutta. 15. With above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of. 16. It is observed that the observations made hereinabove as well as the observations made in the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 shall not prejudice any of the parties in Title Suit No.24/2018 or in subsequent application, if so filed, seeking succession certificate. 17. Return the LCR to the Court below.