The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of counsels to accurately present legal precedents and the importance of fidelity to the law.

1. This is an application for ad-interim reliefs. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Jain for the Plaintiff and Mr. Rishabh Shah for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 at some length.

2. Mr. Shah takes a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction on the basis of limitation. I have framed this issue below. While both sides agree before me to proceed with the hearing of the preliminary issue without leading evidence, I have since found that it would neither be possible nor even appropriate to do so. The reason is because a substantially similar issue is even now pending final disposal before a Full Bench of this Court.

3. Both Mr. Jain and Mr. Shah placed before me certain authorities. I will proceed to set out their respective contentions and to trace, to the extent that I am able, the judicial history of the matter. I do so only for completeness. I have expressed no view on this.

4. In order to appreciate how the preliminary issue arises and why it is framed as it is, a few background facts are necessary. The parties are all of one family, and the dispute is about the estate of one Kiritkumar Shambhulal Nayak (“Kiritkumar”). There is a family tree annexed at Exhibit “B” to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is Kiritkumar’s widow. The Plaintiff is one of the two daughters of Kiritkumar and Defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the three sons of Kiritkumar and Defendant No. 1. Kiritkumar and Defendant No.1 had another daughter named Jagruti, who died on 10th August 2013. Defendant No. 5 is Jagruti’s daughter.

5. The suit is firstly for a declaration that the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are each entitled to a one-sixth undivided share right, title and interest in the estate of Kiritkumar. The second prayer in the Suit is for an order of administration of Kiritkumar’s estate, including of the properties mentioned at Exhibit “C” to the plaint. [Plaint, p. 22.] Prominent amongst these properties is a penthouse apartment of about 1,200 sq. ft with an adjacent terrace of 640 sq. ft. in a building known as “Shivam” at Walkeshwar, Malabar Hill. The third prayer is for partition of the estate by metes and bounds. The fourth prayer is in the alternative to the prayer for partition by metes and bounds. Then there are usual prayers for disclosure etc.

6. Kiritkumar died on 4th August 2005. The Plaintiff claims he died intestate and was survived by the Plaintiff, Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and Jagruti (Defendant No.5’s mother, and who died on 10th August 2013).

7. The plaint sets out that on 21st September 2002 Kiritkumar entered into a development agreement in respect of the Malabar Hill property, now known as “Shivam”. As part of that development agreement, the developer provided Kiritkumar with a penthouse in question. In paragraph 6, it is said that Kiritkumar was the absolute owner of the penthouse. Then there is a mention that the estate also includes other immovable properties elsewhere and movable properties including some lying in a locker with the Indian Overseas Bank, Stadium Road, Ahmedabad.

8. The plaint was filed on the basis that Defendant No. 3 who is usually a resident abroad was proposing to visit India for the purposes of opening the locker and for distribution of the estate. The matter was moved before me on 21st October 2016. I granted a time-limited ad-interim injunction till 25th October 2016. I directed an Affidavit in Reply to be filed. On 25th October 2016, I granted time till 25th November 2016 to file Reply but directed that no Rejoinder should then be filed without leave of the Court.

9. Mr. Jain has had produced before me papers in Testamentary Petition No. 884 of 2006. This was a Petition filed by the 1st Defendant seeking a Succession Certificate to part of Kiritkumar’s estate. This Petition is produced inter alia on account of its averments. In this Petition, which was granted, the averment is that Kiritkumar was survived only by the 1st Defendant and Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In paragraph 4 of this Petition, there is a