Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Ram vs General Public & Ors on 7 December, 2022
CR-1433-2017 (O&M) --1--
221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1433-2017 (O&M)
Decided on:-07.12.2022
Hari Ram ....Petitioner..
vs.
General Public and others ....Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Respondents No.2 to 4 ex-parte.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to
an order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby, an application moved on behalf
of the petitioner for seeking extention of time, so as to fulfill the condition
laid down in the judgment dated 14.11.2014 passed by the court of learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, issuing succession
certificate in his favour, has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner, being the son of deceased - Nanhari widow of Ramji
Lal, filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
(for short, "1925 Act"), seeking issuance of succession certificate regarding
some amount lying in the bank account of deceased-Nanhari, besides her
pensionary benefits lying in Defence Pension Disbursing Office (D.P.D.O.).
The court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi
Dadri, allowed the prayer made at the instance of petitioner, vide judgment
dated 14.11.2014, the operative part of the same is reproduced hereunder:-
SONIKA
2022.12.07 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CR-1433-2017 (O&M) --2--
"Thus, present petition under Section 372
of the Indian Succession Act is hereby allowed with no
order as to costs. The petitioner is directed to execute a
bond with one surety in like amount regarding total
amount of Rs.81,163/- for rendering an account of the
securities received by him and for indemnifying the
person(s) who may otherwise be entitled to the whole or
any part of the securities, within a period of one month
from today. However, the petitioner being L.R. of
deceased-Nanhari Devi is directed to deposit a sum
equal shares to the fee payable under Clause 12
Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 i.e. 2% on
amount of Rs.81163/- within one month from the date of
passing of this order. Accordingly, succession
certificate be issued in favour of petitioner as per
rules."
3. As per the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was to execute a
bond with one surety in like amount within a period of one month from the
date of passing of the order i.e. 14.11.2014, however, petitioner being
working as Labourer could not do the needful as directed by the trial court.
Faced with this, the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial
court with a prayer for seeking extention of time, however, the same came
to be dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2017.
4. It is the said order, which has been impugned by way of present
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner,
happens to be a poor man and has been working as Labourer and on the date
of passing of order dated 14.11.2014, he was away to Assam being
employed as Labourer there and, as such, could not comply with the
direction issued under the aforesaid judgment.
SONIKA
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
2022.12.07 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CR-1433-2017 (O&M) --3--
through the paper-book, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioner.
7. It appears that a hyper-technical approach has been adopted by
the trial court while passing the order dated 17.01.2017 while rejecting the
prayer made on behalf of petitioner for seeking extension of time, so as to
comply with the direction issued under the judgment dated 14.11.2014.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
wherein, petitioner happens to be a poor man fighting for a meager amount
left by his deceased mother, therefore, instead of deciding his rights on the
basis of hair splitting technicalities, the court was required to adopt
pragmatic approach by granting him another chance to comply with
judgment dated 14.11.2014, so as to safeguard his substantial rights.
9. Accordingly, in view of facts and circumstances of the present
case, the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 is hereby set aside and
petitioner is granted another period of six weeks from today to comply with
the direction issued by the trial court vide its judgment dated 14.11.2014
regarding execution of bond with one surety in like amount regarding total
amount of Rs.81163/- for rendering an account of the securities received by
him as directed by the trial court. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
07.12.2022 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
SONIKA
2022.12.07 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
