Delhi High Court - Orders
Kanchana Rai vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 25 January, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST.CAS. 1/2022
KANCHANA RAI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Varun Singh, Ms.
Deepeika Kalia, Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Mr.
Kapish Seth, Mr. Satwik Misra, Mr. Akshay
Dev, Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Ms. Alankriti
Dwivedi and Mr. Abhijeet Pandey,
Advocates for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Mangla, Ms.
Madhulika Rai Sharma and Mr. Anjani
Kumar Rai, Advocates for Respondent No. 3
Mr. KK Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Anshul Rai, Mr. S.K. Pandey, Mr, Awanish
Kumar, Mr. Chandrashekhar A Chakalabbi
and Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee, Advocates for
Respondent No. 4
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with
B. Shravanth Shanker, Adv. for Respondent
No. 5
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rohan
Jaitley, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi
Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham
Vir Agarwal, Ms. Manavi Agarwal, Mr.
Chinappa, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 6
and 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
TEST.CAS. 1/2022 Page 1 of 6
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21:42:48
ORDER
% 25.01.2022
(Video-Conferencing)
TEST.CAS. 1/2022
1. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 and Mr. K.K. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 4, vehemently oppose issuance of notice in this petition. To a query from the Court as to whether there was any express, proscription, in law, on issuance of notice, Mr. Vikas Singh, even while answering in the negative, sought to point out that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest in a proceeding pending before a coordinate Bench in WP (C) 1271/2020. He drew my attention to order dated 6th January, 2022 passed by the coordinate Bench in WP (C) 1271/2020 annexed as Annexure A-1 to IA 577/2022 filed by Respondent 2 in the present proceedings.
2. Mr. Singh submits that in order to avoid a conflict of interest, these two proceedings may be consolidated by either transferring those proceedings to this Court or sending these proceedings to that Court.
3. This Court operates under a restrict roster. The Bench hearing WP (C) 1271/2020 is not, per roster, hearing probate petitions. Similarly, this Bench is not hearing writ petitions. As such, save and except in a case where there is a possibility of the interests of justice being severely prejudiced unless both matters are heard by one Bench, this Bench would not be inclined to list either that matter before this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI TEST.CAS. 1/2022 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:31.01.2022 21:42:48 Bench or this matter before that Bench, contrary to the existing roster.
4. Mr. Singh has taken me to the aforesaid order dated 6th January, 2022 in WP (C) 1271/2020. It is noted that, in the said order, the learned Single Judge has specifically observed, in para 25, that the directions passed by her would be subject to directions passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
5. This single recital in the order dated 6th January, 2022 is, in my opinion, sufficient as a ground not to consolidate these proceedings, as the Court, which is in seisin of WP (C) 1271/2020 has already made the orders passed in that case subject to the orders to be passed in the present matter.
6. That apart, the present matter is coming up for preliminary hearing. Notice is yet to be issued in the present probate petition as well as the applications filed therewith. This Court is not passing any interlocutory orders today. The rights of the parties in this matter are, therefore, not likely to be seriously prejudiced in any manner by mere issuance of notice in the present petition and the applications filed therewith.
7. Mr. Rai, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Respondent 4, also advanced certain objections. Having heard Mr. Rai, these are objections, which could easily be taken by Respondent 4 by way of response to the present petition. As such, they too cannot constitute a legitimate ground to oppose issuance of notice in this matter.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI TEST.CAS. 1/2022 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:31.01.2022 21:42:488. Ordinarily, a probate petition, being premised on an asserted will, merits issuance of notice.
9. In view thereof, issue notice in TEST.CAS. 1/2022, I.A. 132/2022, I.A. 133/2022 and I.A. 881/2022, which are filed by the petitioner, returnable on 18th April 2022. Notices are accepted by Mr. Varun Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, Mr. Anshul Rai, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 and Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
9. Let notice issue to Respondent No.1 through learned Standing Counsel, GNCTD.
10. Replies, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks from today, with advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.
I.A. 134/2022 (Section 151 CPC for exemption)
11. Subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of any illegible and dim documents on which it may seek to place reliance within a period of four weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.
12. The application is disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI TEST.CAS. 1/2022 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:31.01.2022 21:42:48I.A. 578/2022 (Section 151 CPC for exemption)
13. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
14. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 577/2022 (Section 247 for appointment of Administrator)
15. This is an application by Respondent 2 for appointment of an Administrator pendente lite.
16. Issue notice, returnable on 21st February, 2022.
17. Notice is accepted on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Mr. Varun Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, Mr. Anshul Rai, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 and Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
18. Replies, if any, be filed within a period of three weeks from today, with advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.
19. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the original Will stands filed as per the order passed by this Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI TEST.CAS. 1/2022 Page 5 of 6 Signing Date:31.01.2022 21:42:48 on 12th January, 2022.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents pray for permission to inspect the Will. The respondents are permitted to move an application before the Registrar General for the said purpose. On such application being moved, the learned Registrar General shall permit the original Will, which has been filed in a sealed cover to be inspected in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Officer of the Registry.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 25, 2022/r.bararia Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI TEST.CAS. 1/2022 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:31.01.2022 21:42:48