As per case facts, the petitioner, who is the defendant in a suit for money recovery based on a mortgage deed, appealed against the rejection of her application to reject ... the plaint. The petitioner sought rejection on two grounds: first, that the plaintiffs did not obtain a succession certificate as required by Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; and second, that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, claiming it was filed more than 12 years after the mortgage deed was executed. The trial court rejected the application, finding that a succession certificate is not a condition precedent for instituting a suit and that the limitation period started from when the money became due (two years after execution), not from the execution date. The question arose whether a suit for debt recovery by legal heirs without a succession certificate is barred by law and if the limitation period for a mortgage debt starts from the date of execution or when the money becomes due. Finally, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act does not bar the institution or trial of a suit for debt recovery by legal heirs merely for the want of a succession certificate, especially when their heirship is admitted. It further clarified that the 12-year limitation period under Article 62 of the Limitation Act commences from the date the money becomes due, which, as per the mortgage deed's terms, was two years post-execution, making the suit timely. Therefore, the civil revision petition was dismissed.