1. This Is a clear case and we are bound to interfere in revision. The learned Judge, owing to a misunderstanding on the part of his Munsarim, has declined jurisdiction. The Munsarim seems to think that the earlier order requiring the security to be given, namely, the order made on the 6th of January, was the order under appeal and a copy of that order had been filed, but he says the copy of the subsequent order was filed against which no appeal had been brought. This is a mistake. There was a copy of the judgment in the case which led to the subsequent order of the 11th of March, filed in the Appellate Court. That judgment simply struck off the application for a certificate, because the widow had failed to give security. It is true that the appellants before the District Judge had failed to file a copy of the formal order, but as the formal order was a precise copy, so far as its operative words were concerned, of the judgment of the order which they did file, the failure mattered to nobody and the objection is one of those futile and childish objections which bring the law into so much, contempt in the minds of reasonable business people. They did also file, quite unnecessarily, some writing or order which the Judge made on the 18th of March, stating that he had already struck off the application on the nth, so that when Mr. Pullan said, that no appeal lay, he had obviously been misled. An appeal did lie and a very serious appeal on the merits too.
2. We were at one moment almost inclined to make a short cut by passing a final order in this case, but we think the better plan is to remit the case to the District, Judge to hear the appeal. We would, however, implore him to brush aside these miserable technicalities which hamper and embarrass and delay and sometimes destroy the rights of persons who can ill-afford to assert their rights and to get to close quarters with the real question. The applicant is the widow of a separated Hindu and all she wants to do is to collect debts between Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 4,000 due on Hundis which are rapidly becoming time-barred. She is entitled to. collect these debts and she has a beneficial interest in them; So far as we can ascertain at the present moment, she is unable to obtain a decree because any Court in which she happens to sue refuses either to adjourn the proceedings or to grant her a decree without the production of a certificate, while the Subordinate Judge refuses to grant her a certificate except on terms which seem to us much too onerous. In the ordinary way, a Hindu widow ought not to be called upon to give security at all. No doubt, there are many reversioners who are interested, but it is not the business of the Court to go out of its way to look after the reversioners who have no vested interest, and to assume every thing against the widow. The learned Subordinate Judge in this case, seems to have gone rather far, apparently because he thinks that the widow is engaged in handing over the estate, either to her brother or to religious institutions but even if she were, there is a proper remedy for this, and it is really not a reason for creating an obstacle to her recovering debts before they become time-barred. It is really somewhat difficult to see what the object of the security is or what rights the reversioners have even if the lady after collecting the money spends it upon herself for her own purposes. We will merely say, that the learned Judge seems rather to have gone out of his way to place obstacles in this woman's way and to have interfered rather unnecessarily on behalf of the reversioners. The object of a Court is to grant certificates to the persons law-fully entitled to them and not to go out of its way to make it difficult for them to obtain them.
3. We allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and remit the case to the District Judge with directions to hear the appeal on the merits. The respondents must pay the costs of this application including fees on the higher scale; and the District Judge, if in the end he decides that Succession Certificate ought to be granted unconditionally, is to consider the question of costs in the lower Court caused by the objections raised by the reversioners.