Ms.Namita Dania vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7335 Del

$~18
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      TEST.CAS. 27/2009
       MS.NAMITA DANIA                             ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. Nitin Dayal, Advocate

                        versus

       STATE & ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                        Through : Siddharth Choudhary with R-2 in
                        person

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 24.09.2015

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of a probate

of a will dated 14.6.2008 of her father, Lt.Sh.Shyam Sunder Dania.

2. On 6.7.2015, the petitioner had filed an application with the

request that a Local Commissioner be appointed for recording the

evidence of the petitioner's witnesses. On the basis of the said

request, a Local Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence

of the petitioner's witnesses and the parties were directed to appear

before her on 23.7.2015 and on further dates, as may be fixed by her,

for recording the evidence.

3. With these directions, the case was adjourned to 5.11.2015, to

await the report of the Local Commissioner.

4. Pursuant thereto, the Local Commissioner had filed a report

dated 12.8.2015 stating inter alia that the petitioner had failed to

appear herself or through counsel on 23.7.2015 and 11.8.2015 and

nor did she pay the fee as fixed by the court. Neither the petitioner,

nor her counsel had appeared on 2.9.2015. In the interest of justice,

it was deemed appropriate to direct the counsel for the respondent

No.2 to give a written intimation of the next date of hearing to the

petitioner and place on record proof of intimation.

5. Counsel for the respondent No.2 states that the next date of

hearing was duly conveyed to the counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant

thereto, learned counsel enters appearance and states that no

instructions are being received from his client and for the said reason,

he did not appear before the Local Commissioner though a date in that

regard was fixed in his presence. He submits that his client has not

been contacting him for some time and he has no instructions in the

case.

6. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the

present petition, which is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.

The date already fixed stands cancelled.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2015/mk