SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 219

D.P.MOHAPATRA, N.S.HEGDE, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Nirmala Devi – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Gupta – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1. Rest of the respondents though served, have not thought it fit to appear and contest the proceedings.

3. A limited notice was issued by this Court at SLP stage under our order dated 19.7.1999 which is as under :

"Notice to issue limited to the following two aspects :

1. to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, if possible; and

3. in any case to consider whether the probate proceedings can be clubbed with the Civil Suit and can be disposed of by the District Court itself."

4. It has been brought to our notice that settlement is not possible at this stage. Therefore, now remains the question whether the probate proceedings could be clubbed with the suit. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the civil suit is of the year 1987 and that despite various orders of the High Court, it has remained pending and the probate proceedings are initiated by the appellant in 1997 regarding the Will of 1984. Be that as it may, the decision in the probate proceedings on the question of proof of the Will, will have





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top