JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

I.A No.17274/2019 (for condonation of delay of 35 days in fling rejoinder)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 to the petition for grant of letters of administration.

2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of letters of administration in favour of the petitioner, who is residing in the United Kingdom (UK). It is stated in the petition that the father of the petitioner, Lat Shri Madho Lal Mehra, died intestate on 2nd March, 2011 and the respondents no.2 and 3, who are the brother and mother of the petitioner, being the other Class I legal heirs of the deceased, are intent on depriving the petitioner of her rightful share in the estate of her late father.

3. Notice in the petition was issued on 24th January, 2019. Pursuant thereto, respondents no. 2 and 3 have filed their objections/reply.

4. Earlier, the present petition was filed by the petitioner through an attorney, who subsequently expired. Thereafter, the petitioner has been pursuing the present petition herself.

5. Vide order dated 11th September, 2019 passed by the Joint Registrar, the delay of 75 days in filing objections to the petition by the respondents no.2 and 3 was allowed subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-. Further, vide the same order, four weeks’ time was given by the Joint Registrar to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit and affidavit of admission/denial of documents. In terms of the said order, the rejoinder was to be filed by the petitioner on or before 9th October, 2019. However, the rejoinder was filed on 19th November, 2019 along with the present application seeking condonation of delay.

6. Notice on the present application was issued on 10th December, 2019. No reply has been filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 to the present application, however, oral submissions have been made in opposition of the present application.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder. He further submits that Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side), Rules, 2018 would not be applicable to testamentry cases as there is a separate Chapter XXIX in respect of testamentry cases. Therefore, Rule 5 of Chapter VII, which provides for a maximum time limit would not apply in the present case. Further reliance is placed on Rules 15 and 16 of Chapter I of the Delhi High Court (Original Side), Rules, 2018 to contend that the Court would have the power to condone the delay in filing rejoinder in the present case.

8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the present application and submits that:

(i) Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side), Rules, 2018, though applicable to civil suits, would also apply to testamentry cases.

(ii) once, the maximum period of filing replication i.e. 30 days plus 15 days in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter VII is over, the right to file replication/rejoinder would stand extinguished. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Sarup Lugani & Anr. v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1353.

(iii) contentious testamentry cases have to be dealt with in a manner akin to civil suits. Reference in this regard is made to Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act and the judgment of the Division Bench in H.P.S.

Chawla v. Dr. N.P.S.Chawla, (2005) 84 DRJ 516(DB).

9. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

10. Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side), Rules, 2018 is titled “Appearance by Defendant, Written Statement, Set Off and Counter- Claim” and deals with the procedure to be followed in respect of civil suits. Rule 5 of Chapter VII, which deals with delay in filing the replication is set out below:

“5. Replication.- The replication, if any, shall be filed within 30 days of re