Court dismisses petition against replication filing delay, citing unforeseen circumstances and lack of initial objections.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of a Trial Court concerning a probate case, dismissing the application challenging the maintainability of a replication filed after a considerable delay. The case, titled Mrs. Poonam Kumar v. Yash Pal Karval (Through Lrs), centered around the probate proceedings for the estate of Late Shri Ram Lal Karval, initiated under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The petitioner, Mrs. Poonam Kumar, contested the delay in filing a reply/rejoinder, which was submitted two years and seven months after the initial objections were raised in response to the probate petition. Despite the delay, the replication was accepted by the Trial Court, a decision Mrs. Kumar challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
The probate petition, originally filed by the now-deceased respondent, sought the grant of probate or letters of administration based on a Will dated 16th December 2004. The matter saw multiple adjournments, with the reply/rejoinder eventually being filed on 21st January 2021, well past the originally intended timelines.
Mrs. Kumar’s counsel argued that the delayed filing was a strategic move to introduce a new stance in the case and was unfairly accepted by the Trial Court without due consideration of the facts. However, the respondents’ counsel countered that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances, including the death of the respondent and the COVID-19 pandemic, which had severely impacted court proceedings and timelines.
Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, presiding over the matter, noted that no objections were initially raised by Mrs. Kumar when opportunities to file the reply/rejoinder were provided, nor were there objections during subsequent adjournments. The High Court emphasized that the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic and the respondent's demise were valid reasons for the delay and that the petitioner’s later objections appeared to be an attempt to prolong the probate process.
In light of these considerations, the High Court found no fault with the Trial Court’s order, reaffirming that the delay did not invalidate the reply/rejoinder. Consequently, Mrs. Kumar's petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s acknowledgment of the exceptional challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in legal proceedings and highlights the importance of timely objections within procedural timelines.
Bottom Line:
Delay in filing reply/rejoinder in probate proceedings attributed to unforeseen circumstances like the death of respondent and COVID-19 pandemic does not invalidate the reply/rejoinder when no objections were raised initially by the petitioner.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 276, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Mrs. Poonam Kumar v. Yash Pal Karval (Through Lrs), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869090
