The court has the absolute jurisdiction to condone delays in testamentary proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring the validity of the Will before probate is granted.

O R D E R

% 04.07.2025 I.A. 5333/2024 (application on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder to the reply/objections filed by Respondent No. 2)

1. This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the rejoinder to the objections filed by Respondent No. 2.

2. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 states that he has e-filed his reply though the same is not on record.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has handed over a copy of the reply received from Respondent No. 2.

4. It is noted at the outset that this application is being taken up for consideration, in view of the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in FAO (OS)

53/2025, restoring the application to its original number.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Objections of TEST.CAS. 1/2023 Page 1 of 4 Respondent No. 2 were taken on record by the learned Joint Registrar (J) vide order dated 04.08.2023 and the Petitioner was granted four (4) weeks’ time to file his rejoinder. He states that, however, the rejoinder was filed belatedly on 21.11.2023 with a delay of 79 days. He states that the reasons for the delay have been set out in this application.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 states that an advance copy of the reply had been served on the Petitioner in April, 2023, though the formal order taking it on record was passed by the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 04.08.2023. He therefore, states that the delay ought to be computed from the point, which would make the delay approximately 213 days. He states that along with the rejoinder, the Petitioner has placed on record a different photocopy of the alleged Will dated 22.11.2010, which contains pages that are at variance with the copy annexed to the original petition. He states that no opportunity has been granted to Respondent No. 2 to respond to this new version of the alleged Will dated 22.11.2010. He states that Respondent No. 2 therefore apprehends prejudice on account of the photocopy of the alleged Will dated 22.11.2010 placed on record.

7. He states that the pages 43 and 44 of the copy of the alleged Will filed with the rejoinder do not match with corresponding page 25 of the photocopy of the Will which has been filed along with the petition. He states that Respondent No. 2 reserves his rights to raise appropriate objections qua this mismatch at the relevant time.

8. In response, learned counsel for the Petitioner clarifies that the Will dated 22.11.2010 of Smt. Rani Seth annexed to the petition is a registered Will and the Petitioner had filed a photocopy of the said Will initially with the petition. He states that the photocopy of the same Will now annexed to TEST.CAS. 1/2023 Page 2 of 4 the rejoinder also contains the last page (i.e., page 45) bearing the photographs of the testatrix and attesting witnesses as captured at the Sub- Registrar’s office, which was inadvertently left out earlier. He states that to bring the said page on record, the photocopy of the Will has been re-filed with the rejoinder. He states that the initial pages are the same in the photocopy filed with the original petition and the photocopy filed with the rejoinder. He states that page 25 of the photocopy of the Will annexed with the petition corresponds to page 44 of the photocopy of the Will annexed with the rejoinder and there is no discrepancy.

9. He states that it is the stand of the Petitioner that the original of this Will dated 22.11.2010 is in the custody of Respondent No. 2. He states that the Petitioner will prove the Will dated 22.11.2010 in accordance with law, including by summoning the records of the Will from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, where it is registe