FAO (OS) 344/2016 Page 1 of 7

$~25

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO(OS) 344/2016

Date of decision: 10^th July, 2017

GITA SARAN SINGH & ANR

..... Appellant

Through

Ms. Manmeet Arora, Mr. Rishabh

Bansal and Mr. Tarang Gupta, Advocates.

versus

SABITA UBEROI

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Samar Bansal, Advocate for R-1.

Ms. Tania Sharma and Ms. Saumya Parmarthi,

Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

C.M. Nos.44284/2016 & 44285/2016

Counsel for the respondents states that they do not oppose these

applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing.

The applications are allowed and the delay of 48 days in filing and 6

days in re-filing is condoned.

FAO(OS) 344/2016

This intra-Court First Appeal filed under Order XLIII read with

Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns order dated 9^th

August, 2016 passed in I.A. Nos. 9567/2016 and 9568/2016. In the prayer

2017:DHC:3408-DB

FAO (OS) 344/2016 Page 2 of 7

clause, the appellant has also impugned order dated 19^th September, 2016,

dismissing

I.A.No.11442/2016.

This

application

was

filed

for

modification/clarification/correction of the order dated 9^th August, 2016.

2. The appellant-Geeta Saran Singh in fact has partly impugned order

dated 9^th August, 2016, which had disposed of I.A. No.9567/2016 for

amendment of the plaint and I.A. No.9568/2016 under Order XI Rule 12 of

the Code.

3. The impugned order notices the nature of amendments sought and has

crystallized the same in paragraph 5, which reads as under:-

“5.

The plaintiff, by of amendment (i) wants to place

particulars of certain properties which according to the

plaintiff also form part of the estate of father; (ii) wants to

incorporate a claim for partition of the moveable estate of

the mother; (iii) wants to take additional pleas to challenge

the Will set up by the defendant no.1 and to file documents

in support thereof; and, (iv) elaborate on the plea on which

this bench had declined to frame issue and which order has

been set aside by the Division Bench.”

4. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 9^th August, 2016 records that

vide earlier order dated 8^th February, 2016, the appellant has been granted

liberty to raise the question of rendition of accounts in respect of the estate

of the late father, which had not been statedly disclosed by the contesting

defendant No.1, namely, Sabita Uberoi, who is respondent No.1 in this

2017:DHC:3408-DB

FAO (OS) 344/2016 Page 3 of 7

appeal. We may note that there is another sibling namely, Asha Bhalla, who

it is stated substantially supports the appellant.

5. The impugned order records that as far as the plea with regard to

properties, which were left behind by the father, the same had been already

addressed, inasmuch as the appellant would have the benefit of the order

dated 8^th February, 2016. To this extent, in fact, the appellant has not raised

any grievance. With regard to the Will propounded by the respondent No.1,

the impugned order records the statement made by the said respondent that

he would be leading evidence in support of the Will. Issue in this regard has

already been framed and the parties would be entitled to lead evidence in

respect of the circumstances and facts pleaded by the appellant in support of

his contention challenging the Will. To this extent also the impugned order

does not require any interference as rights of the appellant are protected. No

g