Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the caveat was filed without proper procedural compliance (e.g., no affidavit filed within the prescribed time), the caveat is liable to be vacated, and a fresh application with condonation is necessary for restoration ["Mahesh Atalrai Keswani VS Suresh Atalrai Keswani - Bombay"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["SANGRAM KESHARI PRADHAN vs SAILABALA GIRI - Orissa"]- ["VIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO vs PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY (ENCLS 1 & 6) - High Court"]- ["Mahesh Atalrai Keswani VS Suresh Atalrai Keswani - Bombay"]- ["IND_ORI00000028969"]- ["IND_ORI00000028969"]
In probate and testamentary proceedings, lodging a caveat is a critical step to protect interests against grants of probate or letters of administration. But what happens if your caveat is dismissed at the preliminary stage due to non-removal of office objections? This is a common pitfall that can jeopardize your rights. If a caveat is dismissed at the stage of removal of office objections, then an application for restoration of caveat with condonation of delay needs to be filed.
This guide breaks down the procedure, drawing from High Court practices, judicial precedents, and practical insights. Note: This is general information based on case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
A caveat under rules like Rule 401 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules alerts the court to potential opposition against probate or administration grants. It must be filed in the prescribed Form No. 116 within specified timelines. Ketankumar Manganlal Sharma VS Dahiben Vasantkumar Patel - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 390
Office objections are procedural defects flagged by the court registry, such as incomplete documents, improper formatting, or missing fees. Failure to address them promptly leads to dismissal under rules like Rule 986. For instance, the caveat stood dismissed after the advocate failed to remove office objections despite a last chance. Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1093
Such dismissals are treated similarly to defaults in appeals or proceedings, opening the door for restoration.
Courts provide opportunities to cure defects, but persistent non-compliance results in dismissal. Examples abound:- In a testamentary case, the Prothonotary granted a last chance, but failure led to dismissal, prompting a restoration application (Interim Application No. 34288 of 2023). Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1093- Appeals dismissed under Rule 986 for non-removal, followed by restoration applications. Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani VS Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary - 2023 3 Supreme 684Commissioner Of Customs (preventive) VS Advance Technology Devices - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2416
This pattern underscores that dismissal is not final; revival is possible upon showing sufficient cause.
Yes, when a caveat is dismissed for non-removal of office objections, an application for restoration of the caveat must be filed. Courts analogize this to dismissals for default, exercising inherent powers to restore. Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1093
Key steps:- File a restoration application immediately upon learning of dismissal.- Support with an affidavit explaining the default (e.g., advocate negligence, administrative lapses).- Serve notice on opposite parties.- Seek urgent listing to prevent grant issuance.
In one case, the aforesaid Second Appeal came to be dismissed on 27th November 2015, for non-removal of office objections. Thereafter, an application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 894 of 2016 for restoration... Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani VS Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary - 2023 3 Supreme 684
Restoration applications have limitation periods; delays require condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. File it concomitantly with restoration, backed by sufficient cause.
Judicial leniency is common:- 212 days condoned: Civil Application No. 15206 of 2017 is filed praying for condonation of delay of 212 days... Delay is condoned. Consequently... restoring... Harshad N. Dave VS Regional Manager - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1728- 2,386 days condoned due to registry delay in numbering after objections removal: Prayer in this notice of motion is for condonation of delay of 2,386 days and for restoration... there is sufficient explanation for delay... Commissioner Of Customs (preventive) VS Advance Technology Devices - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2416- No fixed limits: We are unable to find any logic... limiting the period for condonation of delay... to 15 days... No other provision... limits... powers... to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. Anupam Industries Ltd. VS M. R. Trading Company - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1984
Even prior caveat delays were condoned, supporting post-dismissal applications. Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1093
Courts prioritize justice: Rules or procedure are... intended to serve the cause of justice and are not for punishment... Anupam Industries Ltd. VS M. R. Trading Company - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1984
Approved causes:- Advocate absence or error. Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1093- Registry faults post-objections. Commissioner Of Customs (preventive) VS Advance Technology Devices - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2416
Rejected claims:- Vague administrative difficulty including shortage of Staff... cannot be the reason for condonation of delay in the absence of same being particularized. Commissioner Of Income Tax VS Airlift (india) Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 2361- Bureaucratic delays without specifics. State Of Haryana VS Chandra Mani - 1996 5 Supreme 75
Long delays invite scrutiny for third-party rights: Whenever delay of a long period... is sought to be condoned, Court should not rule out involvement of third parties... (5250 days set for review). Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. VS Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari - 2025 6 Supreme 568
While focused on Indian High Courts, Malaysian cases under National Land Code (Sections 327, 323) highlight caveats needing valid interest, timely action, and serious questions for trial. Delays undermine legitimacy: There was an inordinate delay in lodging the caveat. VIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO vs PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMYVIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO vs PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY
Removal granted for lack of caveatable interest or evidence, emphasizing balance of convenience. TEONG PEEK MENG vs TEONG PECK JOOTEONG PEEK MENG vs ONG CHUN KIM
These principles reinforce timely procedural compliance globally.
Related Indian delay cases stress affidavits and reasonableness in re-filing post-objections. Crest Education (P) Ltd. VS Career Launcher (I) Ltd. - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2332CREST EDUCATION (P) LTD. vs CAREER LAUNCHER (I) LTD.
To maximize success:1. Act swiftly: File restoration + condonation upon dismissal notice.2. Detail causes: Affidavit with specifics (e.g., advocate failed to remove... Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1093), proof attached.3. Avoid generics: Particularize delays; registry issues viable if evidenced. Commissioner Of Customs (preventive) VS Advance Technology Devices - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 24164. Monitor registry: Post-removal delays condonable.5. Alternatives if denied: Pursue revocation (e.g., Section 263, Succession Act), but exhaust restoration first. Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary VS Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 10936. Urgency: Request early hearing.
Protecting caveat rights demands vigilance. For tailored guidance, engage probate specialists promptly.
References: Cases cited via document IDs reflect High Court and allied precedents.
#CaveatRestoration, #CondonationOfDelay, #ProbateLaw
This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application to restore RSA No. 235 of 2014, which was dismissed by order dated 25.11.2019 passed by this Court. 2. ... As a result, the RSA was dismissed for default. 3. An objection has been filed by the opposite parties, who had filed caveat earlier. ... Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is not satisfied that the long delay in filing the....
She filed the present application under s 327 of the NLC 1965 to remove the private caveat on the grounds that: a. The Defendant had no caveatable interest in the Property; b. There was an inordinate delay in lodging the caveat; c. ... [3] Prior to the decision of this application, the Court had, via encl 6, dismissed the application by one Kavitah a/p Vathumalai to intervene in this proceeding in respect of the private caveat lodg....
She filed the present application under s 327 of the NLC 1965 to remove the private caveat on the grounds that: a. The Defendant had no caveatable interest in the Property; b. There was an inordinate delay in lodging the caveat; c. ... may at any time apply to the Court for an order for the removal of the caveat. ... [3] Prior to the decision of this application, the Court had, via encl 6, dismissed the application#HL_END....
She filed the present application under s 327 of the NLC 1965 to remove the private caveat on the grounds that: a. The Defendant had no caveatable interest in the Property; b. There was an inordinate delay in lodging the caveat; c. ... NLC empowers the aggrieved person to apply for the removal of a caveat in their own name. The Plaintiff has taken such steps lawfully and appropriately.
... IA No. 3467 of 2013 (condonation of delay in re-filing) ... 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the petition. Notice in this application was issued on 01.03.2013. ... Certified copy of annexures be filed. (117) ... 7. Application for condonation of delay in filing/ refilling be filed along with affidavit. (130) ... 8. ... The record shows that on....
The application is made pursuant to s 327 of the National Land Code 1965 ("NLC"). It is also noteworthy that the Plaintiff filed a similar application to remove another private caveat lodged by the Plaintiff's mother, over the same property. ... The first stage is the examination of the grounds expressed in the application for the caveat. If it appears that the grounds stated therein are insufficient in law to support a caveat, then cadit quaestio,....
The application is made pursuant to s 327 of the National Land Code 1965 ("NLC"). It is also noteworthy that the Plaintiff filed a similar application to remove another private caveat lodged by the Plaintiff's brother, over the same property. ... The first stage is the examination of the grounds expressed in the application for the caveat. If it appears that the grounds stated therein are insufficient in law to support a caveat, then cadit quaestio....
National Land Code allows the Plaintiff affected by a private caveat to apply to the Court for its removal. The Court may order the removal of the caveat if the circumstances are deemed just. ... He must go on to show, in appropriate cases, that, based on the affidavits filed, his claim discloses a serious question meriting a trial. This then is the second stage. The degree of proof that has to be offered will, of course, vary from case to case.
National Land Code allows the Plaintiff affected by a private caveat to apply to the Court for its removal. The Court may order the removal of the caveat if the circumstances are deemed just.
The petition was re-filed after removal of objections on 29.11.2012. ... This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in re- filing the petition. Notice in this application was issued on 01.03.2013. Since then pleadings have been completed in the captioned application. ... The argument that the condonation of delay application qua re-filing is defective, is also an untena....
The notices of the applications were issued to the respondent and the respondent filed reply thereto. However, learned Single Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also the application for restoration of the second appeal. It was only when the appellants received a notice for eviction of the house in dispute from the lower court, they came to know that the appeal had already been dismissed in default on 12.04.2016. The appellants then filed restoration application with the application for condonation of delay.
Applying the principles laid down we find that when the first filing was done it was a proper filing in as much that the only objection raised by the Registry on 2nd September, 2008 was for obtaining the caveat clearance. The delay was thereafter in first obtaining the caveat clearance and then in filing an application for condonation of delay in refilling. The Courts are liberal in condoning delay specially in refiling as the rigors of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to representation/refiling and surgery of the husband of the counsel would though be a suffici....
As a consequence, the cross-objections are also dismissed. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections is dismissed.
Hence, caveat dated 27.1.2011 will have to be treated as a new and independent caveat. The caveat dated 27.1.2011 cannot be considered as a caveat by way of amendment to caveat dated 10.1.2011. In my view, if a caveat is to be filed in a particular form, there is no question of filing a new caveat byway of an amendment to a caveat earlier filed in a improper format.
Hence, caveat dated 27th January, 2011 will have to be treated as a new and independent caveat. The caveat dated 27th January, 2011 cannot be considered as a caveat by way of amendment to caveat dated 10th January, 2011. In my view, if a caveat is to be filed in a particular form, there is no question of filing a new caveat by way of an amendment to a caveat earlier filed in a improper format.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
