O R D E R

I.A. 10157/2026 (by petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from furnishing of an administrative bond/surety)

1. By way of present application, the petitioner seeks exemption from furnishing of an administrative bond/surety.

2. It is stated that this Court vide order dated 07.04.2021 had granted the probate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Will dated 26.02.1997 executed by late Smt. Shyama Prabha Anand (mother of the petitioner).

3. It is further stated that the petitioner paid the requisite Court Fee, however, the petitioner being a senior citizen aged 76 years was unable to arrange for the administrative bond/surety. Hence, the present application has been filed seeking exemption from furnishing the administrative bond/surety.

4. Mr. Yash Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the State, two more private respondents were arrayed in the captioned Testamentary Case. Respondent no.3 never appeared and was accordingly, proceeded ex parte. Respondent no.2, though filed objections/reply and also cross-examined PW-1 & PW-2 but thereafter choose not to appear and eventually his right to lead evidence was closed on 05.07.2019. To buttress his contention, Mr. Mishra has invited attention of the Court to para 6 of the judgment dated 07.04.2021 vide which the petitioner was granted probate.

The paragraph 6 reads thus:

“6. Despite service, respondent No.3 never appeared and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Respondent No.2, though filed objections/reply and also cross-examined PW1 and PW2 but thereafter, chose not to appear and eventually, his right to lead evidence was closed on 05.07.2019.”

5. Drawing attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 07.04.2021, he contends that the petitioner was appointed as Sole Executor apart from being the sole beneficiary under the Will. The paragraph 9 reads thus:

“9. The petitioner tendered her affidavit by way of the evidence wherein, she deposed that her mother- Late Smt. Shyama Prabha Anand w/o Late Sh. M.L. Anand, died on 14.01.2002. The death certificate issued by the competent authority was exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A. She further deposed that the Testatrix left behind a registered Will dated 26.02.1997 and that she was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will and that the Will was executed voluntarily without any coercion, pressure, fraud, persuasion and of her own accord and free will in the presence of Sanjay Malik. The Will of the Testatrix was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B. The affidavit by way of the evidence of Sanjay Malik, the attesting witness to the Will, was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/C. She further deposed that the Will of the deceased was her last Will and Testament in respect of the property bequeathed in the said Will and that the petitioner was appointed as the sole executor. She further deposed that the Will was executed at Delhi and the Testatrix, at the time of her death, was also residing in Delhi. She further deposed that the Testatrix was survived by the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 as the only legal heirs.”

6. Mr. Mishra submits that since the petitioner is only beneficiary under the Will, therefore, she may be exempted from filing of administration and surety bond regard being had to the fact that the present petition was not contested by respondent no.3; and respondent no.2 also, did not lead evidence. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sanjay Suri vs State and Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 966.

7. Section 291 of the Act provides that the District Judge may demand from the person to whom probate is granted, a bond with one or more sureties. This Court in Sanjay Suri (supra) observed that Section 291 of the Act has to be interpreted so as to not being applicable to a case of a sole beneficiary and legal heir, under a duly proved Will insofar as requirement of furnishing an administration bond is concerned. The relevant extract from the said de