Full Text
Translation output
$3/21 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS)2706/2012
ASHISH BHAGAT Plaintiff
Through : Mr. J.K. Chawla, Adv.
CS(OS)2706/2012
ASHISH BHAGAT Plaintiff
Through : Mr. J.K. Chawla, Adv.
VERSUS
VEEN BHAGAT & ORS. Defendants
Through None AND
Through None AND
TR.P.(C)3/2015
ASHISH BHAGAT Petitioner
Through :Mr. J.K. Chawla, Adv.
ASHISH BHAGAT Petitioner
Through :Mr. J.K. Chawla, Adv.
VERSUS
VEENA BHAGAT & ORS Respondents
Through : None
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
13.08.2015
13.08.2015
TR.P.(C) 3/2015 and IA No. 25772/2014
Defendant no. 1 is mother; whereas defendant nos. 2 and 3 are brother and sister of plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and injunction in respect of the properties left behind by his father Late Shri Keshav Chander Bhagat. Defendant no. 3 is
2015:DHC:11816 supporting the plaintiff. However, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the partition primarily on the ground that Late Keshav Chander Bhagat had left behind a Will dated 17th July, 2003 bequeathing the properties to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of his estate.
After filing of the suit, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed a Probate
Case No. 35/2013 titled Mrs. Veena Bhagat & Anr. Vs. State & Ors., which is pending before Shri Manish Yadhuvanshi, Additional District Judge - 06 y (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Plaintiff has filed this transfer petition for withdrawing the probate case from the said court and transfer to the High
Court, so that same is tried along with the present suit, in order to avoid any conflicting orders. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on
Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh and Others, (2005) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 503.
Same Will is involved in both the cases, inasmuch as properties involved are also same. Accordingly, in my view, it would be the just and proper if both the cases are tried together by the same Court. Accordingly, Probate Case No. 35/2013 titled Mrs. Veena Bhagat & Anr. Vs. State &
Ors., is withdrawn from the court of Shri Manish Yadhuvanshi, Additional
District Judge - 06 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and transferred to this
11-^ .
Court and be tried along with the present suit.
Transfer Petition stands disposed of. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
Defendant no. 1 is mother; whereas defendant nos. 2 and 3 are brother and sister of plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and injunction in respect of the properties left behind by his father Late Shri Keshav Chander Bhagat. Defendant no. 3 is
2015:DHC:11816 supporting the plaintiff. However, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the partition primarily on the ground that Late Keshav Chander Bhagat had left behind a Will dated 17th July, 2003 bequeathing the properties to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of his estate.
After filing of the suit, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed a Probate
Case No. 35/2013 titled Mrs. Veena Bhagat & Anr. Vs. State & Ors., which is pending before Shri Manish Yadhuvanshi, Additional District Judge - 06 y (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Plaintiff has filed this transfer petition for withdrawing the probate case from the said court and transfer to the High
Court, so that same is tried along with the present suit, in order to avoid any conflicting orders. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on
Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh and Others, (2005) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 503.
Same Will is involved in both the cases, inasmuch as properties involved are also same. Accordingly, in my view, it would be the just and proper if both the cases are tried together by the same Court. Accordingly, Probate Case No. 35/2013 titled Mrs. Veena Bhagat & Anr. Vs. State &
Ors., is withdrawn from the court of Shri Manish Yadhuvanshi, Additional
District Judge - 06 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and transferred to this
11-^ .
Court and be tried along with the present suit.
Transfer Petition stands disposed of. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
CS(OS) 2706/2012, Cr1.
M.A. No. 5017/2013, IA Nos. 16415/2012, 6354/2013, 18834/2013 and 25770-25772/2014
Plaintiff has filed IA No. 18834/2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading proposed defendant nos. 4 and 5. Proposed defendant no. 4 Shri
Ashok Kumar still remains to be served. Notice be issued to the proposed defendant no. 4 through ordinary process, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 1I Ih December, 2015 before the Joint Registrar.
A. . PATHAK, J.
AUGUST 13, 2015 rb
M.A. No. 5017/2013, IA Nos. 16415/2012, 6354/2013, 18834/2013 and 25770-25772/2014
Plaintiff has filed IA No. 18834/2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading proposed defendant nos. 4 and 5. Proposed defendant no. 4 Shri
Ashok Kumar still remains to be served. Notice be issued to the proposed defendant no. 4 through ordinary process, registered A.D. post and courier service, returnable for 1I Ih December, 2015 before the Joint Registrar.
A. . PATHAK, J.
AUGUST 13, 2015 rb
JUDGMENT