TEST.CAS. 9/2019 Page 1 of 7

$~14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 4^th April, 2022.

+

TEST.CAS. 9/2019

MALINI MEHRA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Pavitra Kaur, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee & Ms.

Shreya Singhal, Advocates for R-

2&3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

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 2^nd 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

2022:DHC:1267

TEST.CAS. 9/2019 Page 2 of 7

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 24^th 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 11^th 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 9^th October, 2019. However, the rejoinder was filed on 19^th

November, 2019 along with the present application seeking condonation of

delay.

6.

Notice on the present application was issued on 10^th 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

2022:DHC:1267

TEST.CAS. 9/2019 Page 3 of 7

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