Delhi High Court
Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma & Anr. vs Smt. Sushila Devi on 11 November, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. No.160/2014
% 11th November, 2014
SH. SURESH CHAND SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate.
versus
SMT. SUSHILA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.18401/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ C.R.P. No.160/2014 and C.M. No.18402/2014 (stay)
2. Sitting in this jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), I find that considerable number of petitions; the present petition being one such petition; are filed in absolutely meritless cases. By the impugned order dated 11.9.2014, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the trial court in a suit for C.R.P.No.160/2014 Page 1 of 3 possession, permanent injunction, damages etc observing that issues raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are issues of defence and such issues of defence can only be decided after trial in the suit and not by means of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3(i) Before me counsel for the petitioners only argues that the suit for possession filed on the basis of a Will of which no probate is granted does not lie.
(ii) In my opinion, the argument lacks knowledge of even the elementary provisions of law because in Delhi there is no compulsion to obtain a probate or letter of administration of a Will inasmuch as probate and letters of administration by virtue of Sections 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are mandatory only with respect to the Wills executed in Mumbai, Kolkata, Madras or for Wills executed outside Mumbai, Kolkatta and Madras but for properties situated in Mumbai, Kolkata and Madras. Counsel for the petitioners concedes before me that the Will in the present case was executed in Delhi and is with respect to the properties which are situated in Delhi.
C.R.P.No.160/2014 Page 2 of 3
4. After arguments, the counsel for the petitioners was asked whether he still presses the petition to which it is affirmed that a judgment be passed.
5. In view of the above, the present petition being gross waste of judicial time and an abuse of the process of the law is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. Costs shall be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today. Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 11, 2014 Ne C.R.P.No.160/2014 Page 3 of 3