Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Ms. Kajal Chandra, Adv. Mr. Hatneimawi, Adv.

What is the effect of not raising the limitation issue before the District Court on a Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 application for revocation of probate? What is the appropriate scope of a High Court’s review when the District Court has decided a Section 263 application on merits but the limitation defense is raised for the first time on appeal? What are the proper criteria for considering limitation as a mixed question of law and fact in revocation of probate matters?

Key Points: - The High Court erred in setting aside the District Court’s order solely on the ground that the Section 263 application was belated without any pleaded limitation issue before the District Court (!) . - In the absence of any plea or evidence on limitation raised by the respondents, the District Court proceeded to decide the Section 263 application on its merits and granted relief; thus, the High Court should not have interfered (!) . - The Supreme Court restored the District Court’s order and directed the High Court to consider the appeals on merit without addressing limitation, since there was no pleading or evidence on that aspect before the District Court (!) (!) . - There was no objection by the respondents to the Section 263 application being filed under Article 137, and lack of such objection implies the District Court did not have limitation issues to decide; a belated limitation objection cannot be raised for the first time in appeal (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that limitation issues require proper pleadings and evidence; a mixed question cannot be assumed without a prior record of such issues being raised and proved in the trial court (!) . - The High Court is instructed to consider appeals on their merits without delving into limitation, given the absence of a pleaded limitation issue at the trial level (!) (!) . - The appeals are allowed and restored on the High Court’s file, with directions to decide purely on merits and expeditiously (!) (!) . - No costs awarded; pending applications disposed of (!) .

What is the effect of not raising the limitation issue before the District Court on a Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 application for revocation of probate?

What is the appropriate scope of a High Court’s review when the District Court has decided a Section 263 application on merits but the limitation defense is raised for the first time on appeal?

What are the proper criteria for considering limitation as a mixed question of law and fact in revocation of probate matters?