Delhi High Court
Dr. A. K. Belwal vs Mrs. Shobha Joshi And Ors. on 21 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 74/2014
% 21st July, 2014
DR. A. K. BELWAL ......Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
MRS. SHOBHA JOSHI AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.1419/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ C.M.(M) No.74/2014 and C.M. No.1418/2014 (stay)
2. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the orders of the trial court/succession certificate
court dated 27.11.2013 and 10.12.2013 whereby the petitioner was granted
C.M.(M) No.74/2014 Page 1 of 3
adjournment subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- and by the order of
later date the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Since the two impugned
orders dated 27.11.2013 and 10.12.2013 are short orders, I reproduce the
same as under:-
"Order dated 27.11.2013
Statement of PW-1 Sh. Kailash Kumar Malik is recorded. He files
the statement of account. Admittedly apart from the Syndicate Bank
account the deceased had no other debts or securities regarding which
the succession certificate has been sought. As per the statement of the
Bank Manager Syndicate Bank the account no.90862010000448 was a
joint account which can be operated by the other joint account holder
and was in fact operated by the other joint account holder subsequent
to the death of Mrs. Chitra.
In these circumstances, the said account cannot be said to be a debt
or security regarding which succession certificate can be granted.
Adjournment is sought by the petitioner to seek instructions from
another counsel. Strongly opposed by Ld. counsel for the respondents
submitting that petitioner is deliberately harassing the respondents as
there is no debts or security regarding which the succession certificate
can be granted to the petitioner. In the interest of justice, one
opportunity is given to petitioner subject to costs of Rs.1000/- each to
be paid to each of the respondents on next date.
Put up for further proceedings on 10.12.2013.
Order dated 10.12.2013
An application is moved by the petitioner for waiving off the cost.
Copy supplied. Perused, heard. Adjournment was sought by the
petitioner which was strongly opposed by the respondents on the last
date, therefore the cost was imposed. I find no reason to waive the
cost. Application is accordingly dismissed. Even today, petitioner
submits that his counsel is not available. Petitioner submits that he
does not want to lead any evidence.
Accordingly, PE is closed.
Put up for RE if any, failing which for final arguments on
04.01.2014."
C.M.(M) No.74/2014 Page 2 of 3
3. A reading of the orders shows that the succession certificate
was applied for by the petitioner with respect to only one bank account
which was with Syndicate Bank. When the evidence of PW1 was being
recorded on behalf of present petitioner it became clear that the account was
a joint account and there was no money lying in the account for any
succession certificate to be granted. Accordingly, on 27.11.2013 case was
adjourned and again on 10.12.2013 further adjournment was not granted and
after closing the petitioner's evidence, the case was fixed for respondent's
evidence and failing which for final arguments.
4. In a case such as the present where the succession certificate is
asked for with respect to a debt which is non-existent because there are no
amounts which are available in the bank account, I fail to understand what
the succession certificate can be granted for.
5. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned
orders and the petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
JULY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
