In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that minors cannot be expected to defend their rights without proper legal representation. The Court set aside an ex parte succession certificate after finding that a minor legal heir was not given a fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around the grant of a succession certificate for retiral benefits of the deceased, Omprakash Maheshwari, a lineman with a state electricity company. His daughters approached the trial court claiming entitlement, stating that their mother had predeceased him.
However, another claimant contested this, arguing that official records showed a different spouse’s name. Despite objections, the trial court granted the succession certificate.
Read also:- Patna High Court Questions Aadhaar Correction Delays, Directs UIDAI to Act Swiftly
Later, an application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte order. This application was rejected by the trial court, and the rejection was upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court.
The Supreme Court closely examined whether the minor appellant had been given a fair chance to contest the proceedings.
The bench noted serious procedural lapses. It highlighted that the appellant was a minor about 12 years old when the succession proceedings began. Despite this, no guardian was appointed to represent the minor’s interest.
“The observation that a minor could have responded to a public notice and impleaded himself is wholly erroneous,” the bench observed.
Read also:- No Oral Inquiry, No Valid Dismissal: Supreme Court Sets Aside UP Cooperative Federation Action
The Court further pointed out that:
- The public notice did not clearly mention the death of the deceased.
- The respondents were aware of the minor’s existence but failed to ensure representation.
- There were discrepancies in the application, including incorrect details about family relationships.
Importantly, the Court clarified that proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC allow a party to show sufficient cause for non-appearance and are distinct from appeal proceedings.
“The conclusions drawn by the courts below suffer from serious legal infirmities,” the bench stated.
Read also:- Karnataka HC Quashes FIR, Says Family Disputes Should Not Be Criminalised Without Evidence
Order IX Rule 13 CPC allows a court to set aside an order passed in someone’s absence (ex parte), if:
- They were not properly informed, or
- They had a valid reason for not appearing
Here, the Court held that a minor cannot be expected to act independently or understand legal notices.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s judgment
- Allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Quashed the ex parte succession certificate
- Restored the case to the trial court for fresh consideration
The Court directed all parties to appear before the competent court and instructed that the matter be decided preferably within one year.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepesh Maheswari & Anr. vs Renu Maheswari & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11006 of 2021
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: April 1, 2026
