* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 13.01.2026 Pronounced on : 18.02.2026 Uploaded on : 18.02.2026 + FAO 174/2022 SMT JAI PALI & ORS. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Asav Rajan, Ms. Aditi Pundhir and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates versus SMT PREM SAHDEV .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rara Chand Sharma, Advocate (through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 29074/2022 & CM APPL. 29075/2022 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

FAO 174/2022, CM APPL. 29076/2022 & CM APPL. 32089/2022 (Delay) 1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants seek setting aside of the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the learned ADJ-02, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in M No. 52/2014 and the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the learned ADJ-02, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in PC No. 174/2011.

2. Vide the impugned order dated 28.04.2014, the application seeking revocation of grant of probate under Section 263 of the Act, assailing the ex- parte grant of probate in favour of the respondent, was dismissed on the ground that the same was barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.10.2014, the review application filed by the appellants seeking review of the aforesaid order was dismissed, holding that the plea and objections raised by appellants in the revocation proceedings were rightly barred by limitation.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is that appellant no.1 is the widow of Late Kartar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and the appellant nos. 2 to 4 being sons of the deceased, are the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was the owner of a land measuring 1000 sq. yds. situated at Khasra no.1812-13, Aya Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “property”), which had devolved upon him from his father. The respondent filed Probate Petition before the Trial Court on the basis of an alleged Will dated 01.03.1995 and other documents i.e., an Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney, claiming rights over the said property. The Trial Court granted an ex-parte probate decree in favour of the respondent on 16.08.2003, followed by grant of Letters of Administration on

17.05.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants were never served in the probate proceedings and came to know of the decree only after the Letters of Administration was granted on 17.05.2010. Thereafter, they filed an application seeking revocation of the probate on grounds of fraud, forgery and invalid execution of the Will; however, the said application was dismissed by the impugned orders. It is further submitted that the limitation to file revocation would begin when the appellant acquired knowledge. In this regard, it is further submitted that the appellants were never served in the probate proceeding, as the respondent had given incorrect address of the appellants, and the service report in this regard has already been placed on record.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection on the gross delay of 1588 days in filing the present appeal. On merits, it is submitted that the trial court has rightly upheld the dismissal of review as well as the revocation application.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The revocation application filed by the appellants seeking revocation of the grant of probate was dismissed primarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation. On merits of the case, it was observed that a joint Vakalatnama dated 16.10.2001 bearing the signatures of appellant nos. 2 to 4 was filed in the probate proceedings, indicating their knowledge of the matter. It was further held that even assuming that the appellants had acquired knowledg