S.299 Indian Succession Act | No Appeal Lies Against Order Rejecting Amendment Application In Plea For Grant Of Letters Of Administration: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that no appeal lies under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against an order rejecting amendment application in petition filed under Section 278 of the Act of 1925.

The Court held that since Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC does not provide a remedy of appeal against orders passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rejecting amendment application, the same needed to be challenged either by filing revision under Section 115 CPC or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

“On combine reading of Sections 299 and 278 of the Act, 1925, it is clear that contentious proceeding u/s 278 of the Act, 1925 will proceed as regular suit and appeal against any order, passed during the proceeding u/s 278 of the Act, 1925, will be in accordance with the C.P.C. Therefore, this Court holds that the appeal u/s 299 of the Act, 1925 will lie only against those orders that are appealable as per Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. and rejection of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. does not find place in Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C.,” held Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.

Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for grants of letters of administration.

An amendment application filed by the appellant in a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was rejected. Appellant sought to add the date of the will in the plaint. It was argued that the amendment application did not change the nature of the suit.

The question before the Court was whether the rejection of amendment application filed in a suit under Section 278 of the Act of 1925 could be challenged in appeal under Section 299 of the Act of 1925.

Section 299 of the Act of 1925 provides that appeals against an order of the District Judge under the Act shall lie before the High Court and CPC shall be applicable to the appeals so filed.

Relying on Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, the Court held that no appeal lies upon rejection on amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that “appeal is a creation of statute” and it cannot be interfered with in absence of a statutory provision.

The Court observed that Section 295 of the Act of 1925 provides that if proceeding under Section 278 of the Act of 1925 is contentious, the same shall proceed in the form of regular suit, according to the provisions of CPC.

Accordingly, the Court held that the appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was not maintainable. The Court held that the appellant had the remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC or the remedy of invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Case Title: Indra Bahadur Yadav v. Harkhas And Aam And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 52 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 122

Click Here To Read/Download Order