Delhi District Court
Harsarup vs State on 7 May, 2014
In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
PC No.33/11
In the matter of :
Harsarup .....Petitioner
Versus
State .....Respondent
O R D E R
07.05.2014
1. This order of mine will dispose of an application filed by the petitioner Harsarup for seeking permission to place on record the additional documents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the probate petition filed by the petitioner Harsarup was allowed by the court of Sh. M A Khan, then the Ld. District Judge, Delhi, vide his judgment dated 05.04.1999 and the objector namely Sh. Sukkan has filed the application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act for revocation and annulment of the probate of WILL granted vide judgment dated 05.04.1999 by the court of Sh. M A Khan, then the Ld. District Judge, Delhi and the petitioner has filed the reply to the application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act on dated 03.01.2012 and PC No.33/11 Page No.1 of 7 07.05.2014 thereafter, the petitioner has filed the application under consideration and sought permission to file the additional documents i.e. i) application dated 02.12.2009 made to the consolidation officer, Tehsil Hasanpur, UP, ii) reply filed by Prem Raj, Nathu Singh, Hem Raj, Sanjay, iii) reply received under Right to Information Act to the information sought by the applicant, iv) copy of record of case No.157/07, stating therein that the applicant / objector namely Sh. Sukkan alleged that he came to know about the grant of the probate only on 20.09.2011 and it is further stated that the applicant has approached to the court with unclean hands. It is further stated that applicant / objector was well aware about the proceedings of the probate since the date of its inception, at the time of passing of the order about the WILL dated 08.02.1996 and this is evident from the official record relating to the proceedings pending before Chakbandi Officer of Tehsil Hasanpur J P Nagar, UP. It is also stated that petitioner has obtained the information under the Right to Information Act from the office of Chakbandi Officer of Tehsil Hasanpur J P Nagar, UP alongwith certified copies of the proceedings and further stated that these documents were not within the power and possession of the petitioner earlier and further stated that the certified copies of the same PC No.33/11 Page No.2 of 7 07.05.2014 were made available to the petitioner in the month of May / June, 2012 by the office of Chakbandi Adhikari / Officer of Tehsil Hasanpur J P Nagar, UP, where the proceedings between the parties are pending and from the perusal of the said documents, it may be clear that applicant had already disclosed the factum of probate proceedings, as well as, existence of WILL dated 08.02.1996 before the consideration officer and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the applicant and he has concealed these material facts from the court. It is further stated that the applicant and his attorney were having knowledge of probate proceedings, as well as, WILL dated 08.02.1996 executed by Mangat Ram in favour of petitioner Harsarup and he has filed the present application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act to frustrate the claim of the petitioner before the consolidation officer to delay the said proceedings and to deprive the petitioner from his valuable rights devolved upon him by virtue of the WILL dated 08.02.1996 and further stated that the documents are vital in order to adjudicate the controversy between the parties to the lis and prayed for allowing the petitioner to file the above mentioned documents.
3. On the other hand, the applicant / objector has filed PC No.33/11 Page No.3 of 7 07.05.2014 reply to the said application. He has denied that above mentioned documents were not in possession of the petitioner at the time of filing of the Written statement in the case in hand. It is further stated that these documents were deliberately not filed by the petitioner alongwith the Written statement. He has denied that applicant / objector has concealed any material facts from this court and stated that application is not maintainable at all and prayed for dismissal thereof with heavy cost.
4. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has made the submissions similar to the contents of the application.
6. Whereas, the Ld. counsel for the applicant / objector has made the submissions similar to the contents of the reply as mentioned above.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the applicant / objector has filed the present application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act on dated 21.10.2011 and reply to the application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act was filed PC No.33/11 Page No.4 of 7 07.05.2014 by the petitioner on dated 03.01.2012, whereas, the present application has been filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to file the additional documents on dated 24.11.2012. The ld. counsel for the petitioner namely Sh. Harsarup has submitted that since the applicant / objector has taken the plea in his application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act that he has come to understand about the WILL / probate on 29.08.2011in the Chakbandi proceedings and the petitioner is desirous to place on record above mentioned documents in order to substantiate his contention that the applicant / objector was well aware about the WILL and probate prior to 29.08.2011, as his attorney had filed an application before the Chakbandi Officer of Tehsil Hasanpur J P Nagar, UP on dated 04.03.2011. The ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not in possession of the above mentioned documents at the time of filing of the reply to the application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act and he has received the same after filing of the Written statement to the application u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act. Whereas, from the perusal of the document dated 30.12.2011 received under the Right to Information Act, it is clear that certified copy thereof was prepared on dated 30.12.2011 i.e. prior to the filing of the reply to the PC No.33/11 Page No.5 of 7 07.05.2014 application u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act. Thus, it is clear that the said document was obtained by the petitioner prior to the filing of the application u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act and despite of the same, the petitioner has failed to file the same alongwith the reply to the application u/s 263 of Indian Succession Act. Whereas, from the perusal of the other documents, it is clear that those documents have been received by the petitioner after filing of the reply to the application u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the petitioner was not in power and possession of these documents and thus the contention raised by the petitioner in his application is well fortified qua the three documents.
9. It is worthwhile to mention here that since the petitioner is desirous to place on record all the above mentioned documents to substantiate his contention that the factums of grant of WILL and probate were well within the contemplation of the objector / applicant much prior to the date as mentioned in the application filed u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act by the applicant in this court and these documents may be proved to be helpful for the proper adjudication of the case. But, as this court is of the considered view that these documents could be applied by PC No.33/11 Page No.6 of 7 07.05.2014 the petitioner prior to the filing of the reply in the case in hand and one document was already in power and possession of the petitioner even when reply was filed. So, this court finds that bit negligence can be attributed to the petitioner herein. But, at the same time, this court is of the considered view that in view of such bit negligence and delay in filing of these documents, the applicant / objector may be compensated in the monetary form and since this court is of the considered view that these documents may be proved to be helpful for the proper adjudication of the case. So, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances in their entirety, the application filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to file the additional documents, stands allowed, but subject to the cost of Rs.1000/ to be given to the applicant / objector.
10. In the above said terms, the application filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of.
Announced in the open Court on 07.05.2014 ( Pawan Kumar Matto ) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD/Delhi / 07.05.14 PC No.33/11 Page No.7 of 7 07.05.2014