The Supreme Court has set aside an ex parte succession certificate granted in a long-standing family dispute, holding that the rights of a minor legal heir cannot be defeated due to procedural lapses and lack of proper representation.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal and quashed orders of the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had earlier rejected a plea to set aside the ex parte decree.
The case arose from proceedings initiated under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the daughters of late Omprakash Maheshwari, seeking a succession certificate to claim his retiral benefits from a state electricity company.
The trial court had granted the certificate in their favour. However, another claimant challenged the grant, arguing that she had not been properly heard. The challenge was made under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows courts to set aside ex parte decrees if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.
A crucial aspect of the case was that one of the appellants was a minor at the time the succession proceedings were initiated. The Supreme Court noted that the minor was not impleaded as a party in the original proceedings. No guardian was appointed to represent the minor’s interests. A public notice issued in the case failed to clearly indicate the nature of the proceedings. The respondents were aware of the minor’s existence but failed to ensure proper representation.
The Court strongly criticized the lower courts’ reasoning that the minor could have acted upon the public notice, calling such an expectation “erroneous and perverse.”
The bench reiterated that proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC require courts to examine: Whether summons were duly served; and Whether sufficient cause existed for non-appearance.
The Court emphasized that a minor is legally incapable of defending their rights without proper representation. It also pointed out discrepancies and misstatements in the original succession application, further weakening the validity of the certificate.
The Court clarified the distinction between remedies under appeal and those available under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, noting that the latter provides broader scope to seek relief against ex parte orders.
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of all lower courts; allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC; quashed the ex parte succession certificate; and restored the matter to the competent court for fresh adjudication.
The Court directed expeditious disposal of the case, preferably within one year.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepesh Maheswari And Anr Versus Renu Maheswari And Ors
Citation: JURISHOUR-586-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.11006 of 2021
Date: 01/04/2026
