ORDER : 1. This Revision has been preferred against the order dated 13th April, 2023 passed in Succession Appeal No.1/2022, whereby the District Judge, Janjgir had affirmed the findings recorded by the Succession Court i.e. the Civil Judge Class-I, Akaltara on 22nd March, 2022 in Succession Case No.6/2021, whereby succession certificate has been issued in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 to receive an amount of Rs.11,92,864/- in CMPF Account No. BLP/13/1380 held by the deceased namely, Rameshwari, respondent No.1 being husband in relation and respondents 2 & 3 being children of the deceased employee and the Appeal was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that respondents/non-applicants No.1 to 3 had earlier filed a succession application before the Civil Judge, Class-I, to the Additional Judge, Korba bearing Succession Case No.3/2020, which was withdrawn on 3rd April, 2021. Mother of the deceased employee, namely, Ram Kunwar had also filed a case bearing No.2A/2021 before the Civil Judge, Class -I, Katghora and the same was dismissed for non prosecution on 4th March, 2022. During the pendency of the case, mother of the deceased employee had expired on 7.2.2023 (Annexure-1/6). Respondents/non-applicants No.1 to 3 had subsequently filed Succession Application before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Akaltara bearing Case No.6/2021 alleging that non-applicant No.1 is the husband whereas non-applicants No.2 & 3 are children of the deceased. After enquiry, the said application was allowed in favour of non-applicants No.1 to 3. The petitioner herein was not impleaded as party in the original application and the same ground was raised by the petitioner herein in Succession Appeal No.1/2022 that the petitioner is a necessary party to decide the controversy effectively and completely between the parties, however, the said Appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the present Revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being an employer is a necessary party, which is having service record of deceased Rameshwari and not arraying the petitioner as party is fatal. He further submits that the deceased has made nomination in favour of her mother Ram Kunwar, however, he would not dispute the fact that during the pendency of the case, mother of the deceased had expired on 7.2.2023. The Succession Application is barred by the principle of res judicata, as the earlier application was withdrawn. He further submits that the deceased has made nomination in favour of her mother Ram Kunwar, however, he would not dispute the fact that during the pendency of the case, mother of the deceased had expired on 7.2.2023. The Succession Application is barred by the principle of res judicata, as the earlier application was withdrawn. He further submits that the amount lying with the CMPF is not a security or debt, as defined under Section 370 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act, 1925’). He further submits that the subject application was not filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court, as the deceased was ordinarily residing at Korba District, whereas the application was filed before the Civil Court, Janjgir. Therefore, in view of the provisions under Section 371 of the Act, 1925, the said application was not maintainable before the latter Court. He lastly submits that on the basis of succession certificate, respondent No.1 is also trying to seek employment, though he fairly submits that the succession certificate does not give any right in favour of the holder of the certificate to get employment and the employment is to be given strictly as per the scheme/policy and the Rules of the organization. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3109 (Para-8) and also on the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Indian Associates Vs. Shivendra Bahadur Singh and Others, AIR 2003 Delhi 292 (paras-29 to 33) to submit that the petitioner herein is a necessary party. He prays that the orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Civil Court (Succession Court) are bad in law and the same may be set aside and the matter be remitted back to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that during the pendency of the succession case, a notice was given vide Annexure-R-1/2 to the Regional Commissioner of the CMPF and the said authority has also filed its reply and disclosed that the amount is lying with the said authority. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that during the pendency of the succession case, a notice was given vide Annexure-R-1/2 to the Regional Commissioner of the CMPF and the said authority has also filed its reply and disclosed that the amount is lying with the said authority. He further submits that the amount is lying before the authority of CMPF and the SECL is not paying the said amount for which the succession certificate has been issued. He further submits that the custodian of the amount or property is not required to be impleaded as necessary party during the course of succession proceeding, as the said proceeding is summary in nature and the said proposition was held in the matter of Aruna Derashri Vs. Learned District Judge, Bhilwara (Raj), 2020 (1) RLW 29 (Raj.). He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that the petitioner has no locus and is not a necessary or proper party for adjudication. Alternatively, he submits that even the petitioner was impleaded as party, he would not challenge or contest the relationship of the deceased with the respondents. Being the employer, the petitioner is bound to pay the amount firstly to the nominee and in case of ‘no nominee’, then to the holder of the succession certificate, who are entitled to receive the payment. He submits that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings, in view of the provisions contained under Section 387 of the Act, 1925. He submits that the principle of res judicata does not apply in the present case and as such, the Revision be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the Revision with utmost circumspection. 6. It is well settled that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings. It is also well settled that adjudication in such summary proceeding does not apply in regular proceeding as res judicata. 7. 6. It is well settled that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings. It is also well settled that adjudication in such summary proceeding does not apply in regular proceeding as res judicata. 7. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount which was lying before the authority of CMPF is not a debt or security, as the said amount is due to the deceased employee and after death, the said amount is to be paid to the legal heirs or nominee and if any dispute occurs, then the provisions of Section 370 (2) of the Act, 1925 attracts. 8. The ground taken by the petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction on account of the fact that respondents No.1 to 3 have made a specific averment at para-5 of the petition that the deceased was native/resident of village Baloda, District Janjgir and, therefore, the said Court was having jurisdiction to decide the matter under Section 371 of the Act, 1925, as the amount was lying before the Regional Commissioner, CMPF and no succession certificate has been obtained in respect of the amount, which was lying before the petitioner and even if any deposit i.e. debt or security lying with the petitioner, the said ground deserves to be rejected in view of the law laid down in the matter of Aruna Derashri (Supra) that the person holding debts and securities is not required to be impleaded, and in the present case, the SECL is the custodian of the property, they are not required to be impleaded as necessary party. 9. In the case at hand, mother of the deceased employee has expired on 7.2.2023 during the pendency of the case vide Annexure-R-1/6 and respondents No.1 to 3 are having valid succession certificate to receive the said amount. It is very surprising that instead of paying the amount to the family of the deceased employee who are holding valid succession certificate, the petitioner herein has filed and challenged the impugned order and contested the matter. The said fact is affirmed by the two Courts i.e. the Succession Court and the Appellate Court. 10. Resultantly, this Court does not find any substance or merit in this Revision, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.