Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sangita Rajendra Sharma (Caveator) vs Gopal Hanuman Prasad Narsaria(Pet) And ... on 7 August, 2024

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2024:BHC-OS:11945
                                                                              39-IAL16805-2022.DOC
 SANTOSH
 SUBHASH
 KULKARNI                                                                                       Santosh
 Digitally signed by
 SANTOSH SUBHASH
 KULKARNI                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Date: 2024.08.08
 18:46:14 +0530


                                TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

                                   INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16805 OF 2022
                                                      IN
                                          CAVEAT (L) NO. 7554 OF 2022
                                                      IN
                                           PETITION NO. 2476 OF 2021
                                                     WITH
                                             WILL NO. 994 OF 2021

                       Gopal Hanuman Prasad Narsaria                                  ...Petitioner

                       Gayatridevi Hanuman Prasad Narsaria                            ...Deceased

                       Ms. Grishma Lad, a/w Priyanka Yadav and Shivangi Singh,
                             for the Applicant - Caveator.
                       Mr. Ajinkya Lokare, for the Petitioner.

                                                             CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                             DATED :    7th AUGUST, 2024
                       PC:-

                       1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                       2.     This is an application for condonation of 40 days delay in

                       filing the Caveat.

                       3.     This petition is filed for grant of Letters of Administration

                       with the Will annexed to the properties and credits of

                       Gayatridevi Hanuman Prasad Narsaria, the deceased mother of

                       the petitioner.         The deceased left behind the petitioner and the

                       Caveator, who is the daughter of the deceased.




                                                            1/4


                        ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2024                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:34:28 :::
                                                        39-IAL16805-2022.DOC

4.     The citation was served on the Caveator on 14 th January,

2022. The Caveat came to be filed on 10 th March, 2022. There is

a delay of 40 days in filing the Caveat.

5.     In the application, the applicant avers that the Caveator

could not file the Caveat within the stipulated period on account

of financial constraints due to the exigency of the situation

which arose on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The applicant

had approached the High Court Legal Services Committee, to

provide legal aid to her. The applicant was also unwell. Hence

this application.

6.     An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the petitioner

controverting the reasons ascribed in the application for

condonation of delay in filing the Caveat.

7.     The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Caveat has already been disposed by an order dated 29 th

February, 2024.            There is 80 days delay in filing affidavit in

support of the Caveat. However, the applicant has not prayed

for condonation of delay in filing the affidavit in support of the

Caveat. It was submitted that there is no justifiable reason for

condonation of delay.

8.     I have perused the averments in the application and

contentions in the affidavit-in-reply.
                                      2/4


 ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2024                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:34:28 :::
                                                     39-IAL16805-2022.DOC

9.      Evidently, the applicant - Caveator, being the daughter of

the deceased, has a caveatable interest.           The applicant has

ascribed reasons for delay. The application came to be filed by

the Caveator after availing legal aid through the High Court,

Legal Services Committee.

10.     It is trite an application for condonation of delay should

receive liberal consideration.        The Court leans in favour of

condonation of delay so as to advance the cause of substantive

justice by deciding the lis on merit rather than on technicalities.

The issues highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner

regarding the want of prayer and the dismissal of Caveat fall in

the realm of the technicalities as the application for condonation

of delay was already filed when the Caveat came to be dismissed

for non-removal of office objections.

11.     In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am impelled to allow

the application.

12.     Hence, the following order:

                                 :ORDER:

(i) Application stands allowed.

(ii) The delay in filing the Caveat and affidavit in support of the Caveat stands condoned.

3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:34:28 :::

39-IAL16805-2022.DOC

(iii) By way of abundant caution, the order dismissing the Caveat for non-removal of office objections stands recalled.

(iv) The Caveator shall remove the office objections, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

(v) Upon removal of office objections, if any, the Caveat be accepted and registered.

(vi) Affidavit in support of Caveat be also taken on record.

Application disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:34:28 :::