[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Poonam Kumar vs Yash Pal Karval Through Lrs Ms. Kanchan ... on 19 March, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16th March, 2026
Date of Decision: 19th March, 2026
+ CM(M) 600/2023 & CM APPL. 18756/2023
MRS. POONAM KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. K. Saini and Mr. Dashmesh
Tripathi, Advs.
versus
YASH PAL KARVAL (THROUGH LRs) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha and Mr. Anmol
Sethi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 17th March, 2023
passed by the learned Trial Court in Probate Case No. 06/2018, whereby the
application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking consideration of the
maintainability of the replication dated 21st January, 2021 has been
dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The Respondent No. 1 (since deceased) has filed a petition under
Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate/letter of
administration to the estate of Late Shri Ram Lal Karval on the basis of Will
dated 16th December, 2004. On 19th July, 2018, the petitioner/respondent no.
2 (in the probate petition) filed objections to the probate petition in the Trial
Court and the matter was adjourned to 17th November, 2018 for filing the
reply to the said objections. The reply was not filed on that date and the matter
was adjourned to 27th March, 2019 for filing the reply. The reply/rejoinder
was filed on 21st January, 2021.
4. On 01st November, 2022, the petitioner moved an application under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for treating the replication
as not maintainable. Vide impugned order, the application has been dismissed
by the Trial Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the replication has
been filed after an inordinate delay of about two years and seven months from
the date of filing of the objections, despite the fact that sufficient
opportunities has been granted to file the same. Learned Counsel further
submits that the replication has been filed solely with the intent to introduce a
new stand in the case. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order without
due appreciation of the facts and material on record. Accordingly, it is prayed
that the impugned order be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the
impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court after considering the
material on record. The application has been filed by the petitioner only to
delay the probate proceedings. The delay in filing the reply/rejoinder is on
account of death of the respondent no. 1 who is now represented through his
legal heirs and also, on account of COVID-19 pandemic. The petition is
without any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. From the material on record, it is evident that there is a delay of about 2
years and 7 months in filing the reply/rejoinder. The petitioner has not
objected to the filing of the same in the trial court and, in fact, moved the
present application after about one year from the date when the reply/
rejoinder has been taken on record. A perusal of the record further shows that
no objection was raised by the petitioner at the time when an opportunity was
granted to file the reply/rejoinder, or even when further adjournments were
granted. The delay in filing the reply/rejoinder has also been attributable on
account of the demise of respondent no. 1 and COVID-19 pandemic during
that period. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court, and the same is upheld. The present petition is dismissed as being
devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 19, 2026/TP
