JUDGMENT:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant. By the impugned order the view expressed by learned Additional District Judge deciding a preliminary issue was upheld. Learned Additional District Judge had held that the petition for grant of Letters of Administration of Will dated 9.9.1991 purportedly executed by late Sh. Mohinder Singh Khandpur was not barred by limitation and was maintainable.

3. The factual position needs to be noted in a nutshell as an interesting question of law is involved for the resolution of which factual details are not relevant.

4. Appellants stand all through was that the testator- Mohinder Singh Khandpur has expired on 5.10.1995 and the petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the Act) for grant of Letters of Administration was filed on 7.8.2002, and therefore, the same was barred by limitation. Learned Additional District Judge after referring to Section 232 of the Act held that the cause of action in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had arisen only when the Probate Petition No. 22 of 1996 filed by Ms. Nirmal Jeet Kaur- respondent No. 5 was withdrawn on 9.8.1999 and therefore the Petition for grant of Letters of Administration filed on 7.8.2002 was filed within three years and therefore was within time.

5. The order was challenged before the High Court. Appellants stand was that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short Limitation Act) had application. It was submitted that Article 137 of the Limitation Act has clear application and the application for grant of letters of Administration was filed beyond the speculated time.

6. The High Court observed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings or grant of Probate/Letters of Administration and therefore the view of the learned Additional District Judge was correct. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of S.S. Lal v. Vishnu Mittal Goel [112 (2004)DLT 877]

7. The High Court noted that there was no dispute that Mrs. Nirmal Jeet Kaur had filed a Probate Petition in the court of District Judge which was numbered as Probate Case No. 22 of 1996 for grant of Probate in respect of will dated 9.9.1991 after the death of Mohinder Singh Khandpur. The said petition was withdrawn on 9.8.1999. An application was filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for being transposed as applicants in the application but the said application was dismissed with right and liberty granted to the present respondent nos. 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings.

8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Courts view that Article 137 of the Limitation Act was not applicable is incorrect. It is submitted that right to apply in terms of Article 137 accrued when there was a dispute about genuineness of the Will. Therefore it was submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the right to apply for grant of Letters of Administrations is a continuing right and the starting point is the happening of an event. In the instant case, after the petition for grant of probate was withdrawn the event arose. Further while permitting withdrawal, liberty was granted to the present respondent nos. 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings.

10. Two questions need to be addressed in this appeal. Firstly, about the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act and secondly even if it is applicable whether the petition was within time.

11. In The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma [1976 (4) SCC 634] it was inter alia observed as follows:

"18. The alteration of the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963